This year, every remaining candidate was invited to debate a range of political topics that touch on Science.  Every candidate refused to debate. 

This is what was written on the 2008 Science Debate invitations:

"Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy."

Unfortunately, the candidates for President of the United States of America don't think Science is worth debating.  And why would they?  I'm sure that understanding how to come to logical conclusions about our environment, economy, ethics, health and technology isn't all that important when you're the leader of the free world.  Right?

If you have a problem with this trend, check out the website below and petition to get this debate going in 2012.  It could be the most important thing you do today!  And as an added bonus, supporting this debate will put you in good company.  My company!  :)

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=2

CCD,

Ben

Michigan Detroit News, Obama 43, Mccain 41

Ohio PPP (D), Obama 48, Mccain 40

Georgia, Rasmussen, Mccain 53, Obama 42, Barr 1

Alaska,Rasmussen, Mccain 49, Obama 44

Carolina do Norte - Civitas/TelOpinion (R), Mccain 43, Obama 40

New Hamsphire - University of New Hampshire, Obama 46, Mccain 43

Maine - Rasmussen, Obama 49, Mccain 41

Alaska - Research 2000, Mccain 51, Obama 41

Notas:

- Enorme discrepância nas sondagens do Ohio. A única conclusão que podemos retirar é que será um battleground state. Pelas histórico recente das sondagens, Obama está na frente.

- O Michigan deverá ser um dos poucos estados que votou Kerry e Gore que John Mccain tem algumas hipóteses de vencer. Vai ser outro estado decisivo. Mccain deve muito ao New Hampshire. Não é de excluir uma vitória sua aqui, mas Obama leva vantagem.

- Mccain aguenta-se bem no Alaska, e Georgia, dois estados que estão na mira de Obama. Não se sente o efeito Barr na Georgia. E Obama deverá vencer, com relativa facilidade o Maine, que chegou ser considerado um estado que poderia virar para o GOP.

- A Carolina do Norte está mesmo em perigo para os republicanos. Deverá ser forte aposta para os democratas este ano. Será que a escolha de Edwards para VP não ajudaria neste estado?

Nuclear deal, UPA and Mr.Manmohan Singh et al have been given the vote of confidence...

Votes for: 275; votes against: 256 and 10 absentations... an emphatic victory!!

However, after the electronic voting failed as only 487 cast their votes where as the Parliament has some 541 MPs. What happened out there? The MPs couldn't figure out or what?! And then voting had to be done again on paper!!! and here is our country where about 600 million people vote using the same electronic system of voting!!!Then there were news channels talking to different MPs about the IAEA and NSG and the whole deal and these people had no clue as to what the hell they were voting for?!

But its been an incredible day with the lobbying and the drama of the lok sabha!! Lalu prasad yadav with his choice of words had everyone laughing; omar abdullah too added loads of valuable bit as far as what I saw of it... Mom, dad and I were glued to the TV when suddenly the whole bribe issue dropped in the middle with bundles of cash being swayed and Lok Sabha was adjourned!!!  The honourable Speaker was extremely dissappointed and the matter is under his purview for further investigations concerning the allegations against Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel.

Ironic and hilarious at the same time...for on one hand we, we know of the kind of dirty politics and underhand work that goes around our country with ease but such a thing in the Parliament would be insane and has not been proven...and even though our politicians might be corrupt; I'm sure they are not so dumb so as to do such an act at such a place!! All said and done, the session was resumed, the PM, Mr.Manmohan Singh could not even start his speech and had to send a written note and finally the vote and UPA won!! I was in my gym when all of this was happening, middle of my physiotherapy for the shoulder and there I was hopping off my cycle every 5 minutes to hear what was happening...and so many more all glued today to the TV to see what would happen to the future of our country...I'm glad for the political stability that would be maintained but raises the same old debates about the democracy of our country and how presidential form of government would work in our country...for today's drama did not lead to a sense of satisfaction but again that same urgency and frustration that I've spoken about so many times earlier...

Whatever said and done, Mr. Manmohan Singh's name will go down our history for the 2 structural transformations- 1991 economic liberalization and now 17 years later, bring India back into the nuclear club!

Vereador, Guarulhos, Eleições 2008, Propostas, TER, TSE, Pesquisa, Votos, Primeiro Colocado, Ipobe, Debates, São Paulo, Propostas, Histórico, Comitê, Resultados, Votação, Aceitação Pública, Fórum

Marx’s point was simple but profound. The tradition of the dead generations, he claimed, weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living: "Just as they [revolutionaries, ‘men’] seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95."

Believe it or not, Prakash Karat in his Twenty Second July, is the Lenin and Manmohan Singh his Kerensky. On the 21st, his very own Pravda, The Hindu reported him saying that "the country would revolt if it [the govt] tried to push the India-U.S. nuclear deal in case it lost the trust vote in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday." The country would revolt? On the Indo-US Nuclear Deal? You must be joking. Most Indians, like it or not, couldn’t care less about the deal. If anything they might think, rightly or wrongly, that in the current world scenario, it is best to be on the right side of the USA.

Let us be clear. Our point here is not the deal as such. Others on Kafila have commented on it and related issues like that of nuclear energy itself, on other occasions. My point here is simply of this fantastic assessment of a ‘country rising in revolt’ – almost as dramatic as Karat's assertion a few days ago that "we are telling the allies that ‘the UPA is a sinking ship’." (A friend of course remarked: Hmmm, so the rats are deserting the sinking ship). Be that as it may, please do not miss the great Leninist re-enactment here. Remember Lenin: "The people are voting with their feet" – i.e. deserting the war front, just as they are deserting the Kerensky (Manmohan Singh) government (a bit like rats deserting the sinking ship).

So is commissar Karat completely oblivious of the mass mood, unlike the astute politician and revolutionary he is emulating? Does he really think that the country is on the verge of a revolutionary upsurge? In the last sixty-odd years of the Indian republic, despite the best efforts of parties like his – and umpteen others – the most you could get were local revolts. Even the much celebrated Telengana and Tebhaga uprisings were just local revolts. But maybe Karat is not that naïve – maybe he does understand. Despite his complete lack of understanding, both of Indian society as well as the world of politics. From Edinburgh to JNU student politics to the Politburo is not exactly the route that would enable gaining this understanding. Karat never had to discover his India, unlike say Nehru, who after returning from Cambridge had to undergo the rigours of building a mass nationalist movement, as an understudy of Mahatma Gandhi. His own party leader Jyoti Basu too returned from England as a trained lawyer in the 1930s, only to be asked by Muzaffar Ahmed (then leader of the Bengal CPI) to go and work among the railway workers. And you can see the difference. One came up through hard grassroot work of mobilizing and building a movement, while the other just descended from the heights. One student leader of JNU had in fact coined this phrase to describe the trajectory of the likes to Karat: Nothing succeeds like Sussex, he would say. So you can see the difference. Karat can only say anything worth anything on issues that demand neither and understanding of Indian society nor of politics as such – the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, for example. For the rest, his strategy is of staying away from the hurly burly of mass politics and power.

Recall Marx’s profound remarks above, where he comments that in moments of crisis, revolutionaries "anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes". For the parallels with 1917 do not end here. It is a trifle amusing but nevertheless interesting to read the following from Lenin’s text The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, penned in September 1917. After berating the government for its continuation of the imperialist war in alliance with imperialist powers like Britain, France and others, he goes on to say:
"(T)he new government…has not even published the secret treaties of an obviously predatory character…which as everybody knows, binds Russia (India) to Anglo-French (US) predatory imperialist capital."

It is as though the entire script of the Karatian drama was lifted straight from the repertoire of the Russian revolution! Truly prophetic was Marx, at least in this respect. First time as tragedy, second time as farce!

And thus the dice was thrown by Karat and his men. My use of this gendered term (‘men’) is intentional, given that Karat and all his little commissars have been aggressively displaying their manhood, promising a scintillating ‘fight to the finish.’ It wasn’t enough to oppose the deal and withdraw support from the government. Like real men, they want a fight to the finish, even if that means ‘traveling in the same railway compartment’ with the fascists who have so long been waiting in the wings. The sinking morale of the BJP has suddenly disappeared. In its stead we saw Advani and his entourage suddenly come alive. Wiser counsels like that of Jyoti Basu’s were of no use. We must teach the UPA a lesson, Moochh ka sawal hai. Many of us could almost hear them say, “We’ll show them who has a bigger youknowhat….”

But all the bluster apart, the Gen Secretary suddenly realized that the game was not going according to plan. There was no mass uprising in evidence anywhere. In fact, even the other parties were not prepared to back this misadventure whose poetry they hardly understood. At last he decided to do the unthinkable. He drove to Mayawati’s place. You don’t have to be especially astute to figure out that at this particular moment, she is really angry with the Congress and the UPA and will be a willing partner in this toppling game. She doesn’t quite care whether the Deal stays or goes. She was clear: Our only purpose is to topple this government. All the while Karat spoke to her about the pros and cons of the N-deal, she was planning her future political moves. After all, Mayawati knows her India, her constituency and her political ground. She knows that ultimately Karat needs her support not she. She knows this because, despite withdrawing support to the UPA, she did not precipitate a crisis. She had neither manhood issues to settle nor was she in any hurry. She knew and knows that the game is hers to play in the long run. And sure enough, commissar Karat must realize, his fortunes started changing the minute he managed to enlist Mayawati’s support. Even within his own party, the alliance with Mayawati has livened up many a depressed soul. He should realize what both the BJP and Mayawati herself know: the game now onwards is hers. We wish her well. After all, all history is unintended consequence. Who would have thought the opposition to the N-deal would catapult Mayawati to the center-stage?

Mas eu prefiro que o leitor acompanhe o debate de alto nível de ambos. Minha opinião, já exposta aqui, é que não se deve ignorar o longo prazo e as consequências desta lei sobre as escolhas públicas. Talvez, de foma confusa, eu pense que o direito natural é tornado escasso, no longo prazo, embora benéfico no curto prazo. Mas eu não elaborei este ponto de forma muito clara ainda. Ah, maldita ignorância...

Anoche me di cuenta de que, cuando hablamos, cuando debatimos, yo busco semejanzas y a Jorge le encantan las divergencias, de una chispa monta el fuego de un debate. Puede estar a favor el 99 % en algo con alguien, pero él sólo se fijará en el 1 % restante, como bien dice, porque no nos importa decirnos lo listos y guapos que somos sino continuar investigando y opinando.

Creo que a mí me pasa al revés. En mi mente existe una especie de mundo ideal o feliz ilusionario (no como el de Aldous Huxley, sino mejor y más bonito). A ratos yo concibo el mundo como una especie de gigantesco puzzle de miles de millones de piezas (el mundo cercano, porque el universo sigo diciendo que es un caos) de tal manera que si fuésemos capaces de ir colocándolas amorosamente cada una en su lugar, todos iríamos tejiendo poco a poco un paisaje común que nos abrigaría mútuamente, nos emocionaría por igual. Por éso me gusta buscar acuerdos y admiro a la gente que lo hace. Y también a quienes indagan sin desmayo las respuestas a lo más complicado, como mi compa, aunque sea un 1 % de cosas.

Algo así como los primeros socialistas creyeron que su ideología se abriría paso por la evolución natural de la sociedad en sus deseos de justicia, igualdad y progreso, defiendo yo también que la evolución normal del pensamiento es el acercamiento progresivo en las posiciones.

Y os pregunto:

1.   ¿Tiene ésto que ver con la globalización? ¿Es positivo o negativo mi mundo feliz? ¿Soy un utópico ingenuo?

2.  ¿A qué le dais más importancia, a llegar a acuerdos o a debatir diferencias?

3. ¿Coincidís con la tesis marxista que en su idealismo filosófico pensó en el socialismo como conclusión de la evolución natural de la dialéctica de la historia?

(prometo que no he fumado nada raro)

(he puesto más interrogantes de los que toca)

Ciudadano Iesu

Was Muhammad a Prophet of God?

For Muslims, the question of Muhammad's true prophethood is indisputable.

They firmly believe that he is a true prophet and Messenger of God, through whom God's divine revelations throughout history were culminated and perfected, thus forming the universal divine message to mankind.

For critics of Islam, generally, it is Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), rather than God, who is the founder of Islam, the author of its teachings, and the composer of its holy book, the Qur'an.

A sincere and "neutral" researcher examine both claims and arrive at his own conclusions.

Representing the Muslim perspective was Sami Zaatari: Sami has written hundreds of articles defending Islam , He runs the website www.muslim-responses.com

He is currently studying literature in London and is working on a book on Jesus' crucifixion.

Representing the Christian side was Mr. David Wood: David is a Teaching Fellow at Fordham University, where he teaches Philosophical Ethics.

He holds degrees in Biology and Philosophy and is coauthor of the book Who Was Jesus? Who Was Muhammad?  He runs the website www.AnsweringMuslims.com

This Debate was held in Old Dominion University and the Central Baptist Church in Ghent, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

Nascido na Índia, de pais da região de Goa (daí o sobrenome familiar), chegando nos EUA no final dos anos setenta.

Na semana passada fiquei sabendo que haveria hoje, às 17:30 hs de Brasília um debate entre ele e o cientista britânico Richard Dawkins. Dinesh tem aparecido como defensor do cristianismo e grande debatedor. Dawkins resolveu pular fora aos quarenta do segundo tempo.

Que pena.

Para quem quiser conhecer um pouco mais de Dinesh, o seu site pessoal é:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/index.html

España 300, Francia 5

Valeriano Ruiz

En efecto, el sistema eléctrico español en el año 2007 fue de 300 TWh (miles de millones de kilovatios.hora al año). De ellos, 55 se generaron en las centrales nucleares españolas y cinco se importaron de Francia. A eso hay que añadir -para complementar la información- que 67 se generaron con fuentes renovables y que exportamos a Portugal y Marruecos 11 TWh.

Si con esa información (página web del Ministerio español de Industria, Turismo y Comercio) se extraen las conclusiones que personas de alto nivel del mundo de la política, los sindicatos y los medios de comunicación están extrayendo estos días, sólo puedo sorprenderme de que no tengan en su entorno personas que les informen correctamente. Porque su buena fe y honradez las doy por seguras.

Las conclusiones a las que me refiero y que están calando en la opinión pública, por la autoridad moral de quienes las sacan y la repercusión que les dan los medios de comunicación, son, además de falsas -como se demuestra con los datos antes citados- tendenciosas. Sobre todo porque hacen pensar a todos que si no se hacen nuevas centrales nucleares -once parece que quieren en el sector-, España tendría problemas de abastecimiento eléctrico y, además, no podríamos cumplir nuestros compromisos con el Protocolo de Kyoto.

Ni una cosa ni otra son del todo ciertas.

Como se puede observar por los datos, las renovables pueden generar la electricidad que sea necesaria; en estos momentos, ya incluso más que la nuclear (67 frente a 55). Y más en el futuro inmediato, sobre todo si el Gobierno cumple los compromisos reiterados de nuestro presidente de apoyar a las energías renovables y no lo que parece que se avecina.

Hay otra cuestión también curiosa en las conclusiones citadas: las hacen personas del más alto nivel del partido que sustenta al Gobierno aun a sabiendas de las veces que el presidente Zapatero se ha pronunciado en el sentido claro de ir cerrando las centrales nucleares existentes a medida que vayan cumpliendo su ciclo de vida. Amén de que en todas las conferencias políticas y todos los congresos y programas electorales del PSOE se ha ratificado esta posición. ¿Acaso hay líderes políticos en el PSOE que están por encima de los planteamientos y decisiones democráticamente expresadas en su partido y aceptadas por el secretario general?

El otro aspecto que más arriba decía que quería dejar claro es que las nucleares tampoco van a resolver el problema de los GEI (gases de efecto invernadero) de nuestro ineficiente y contaminante sistema energético.

De los 123 Mtep que en forma de combustibles fósiles abastecieron, en el pasado año 2007, nuestro sistema energético y cuya combustión es el origen del 80 % de los gases de efecto invernadero, 88,5 Mtep (el 72 %) abastecen al subsistema de combustibles para producir la gasolina, gasóleo, butano, etc. que empleamos en nuestros coches y en nuestras casas. Por suerte, no existen centrales nucleares para alimentar estos consumos, con lo cual por ese lado poco pueden hacer nuevas centrales nucleares.

Es obvio que solamente el 28 % restante es el que abastece el sistema eléctrico, donde sí podrían las nucleares sustituir a centrales de carbón o de gas natural con la consiguiente reducción de los citados GEI.

Claro que, como hemos dicho antes, esta sustitución necesaria también podría hacerse con renovables y con cogeneración, como de hecho ya se está haciendo; por cierto, con mayor cantidad de puestos de trabajo locales (mensaje para los sindicalistas), mejora de nuestra competitividad tecnológica y aumento de nuestra independencia energética, circunstancia que tampoco se alivia con nucleares, puesto que todo el uranio que se emplea en las centrales españolas procede del extranjero (de Rusia, sobre todo).

Para terminar quiero dejar clara mi posición básica acerca del problema energético y medioambiental principal: cambiar en profundidad el sistema energético -ya lo aceptan muchos- no consiste sólo en cambiar unas formas energéticas por otras y tranquilizar las conciencias y los bolsillos de los consumidores. Es bastante más complejo y creo que lo más importante de todo es mejorar el nivel de formación y de información de los consumidores y de los responsables del sistema y, de paso, aumentar su nivel de concienciación y de responsabilidad.

O projeto está em sua primeira edição. O Festival é uma realização da Associação Cultural O Imaginário, com patrocínio da Caixa Econômica Federal/Governo Federal. A abertura oficial acontece no dia 23 de julho, às 9 horas, na Casa da Cultura Ivan Marrocos, na capital de Rondônia. No mesmo dia, às 15 horas, será apresentado o ciclo de debates O teatro de Rua e suas Perspectivas e, às 20 horas, o espetáculo Manoela e o Boldo. A programação completa pode ser vista nos site. Mais informações pelo telefone (69) 9979-0048 .

You are exactly right that many in the religious tradition do not see religion as an unchallengeable monolith, but I'd say they might be kidding themselves to a great degree.  It's a pleasant, but misleading half-truth that Catholocism has ‘evolved' since 313 A.D., or that Fox helped Christianity ‘evolve'.  Of course these religions have changed!  And of course many unfounded claims have been made in science, literature, history, etc.  This is part of the learning process.  People will continue to make these claims in all areas of life, too.  

My point, though, remains unchanged.  To compare the evolution in religion to the evolution in the ‘competitive marketplace of ideas' is ludicrous.  Religions, by comparison, are monoliths (if not ABSOLUTE ones).  They have evolved UNWILLINGLY!  It took hundreds of years for the Church to admit it was wrong about the ‘Heliocentric' solar system.  It would have taken the scientific community (free of their infected religious upbringing) a few weeks (months maybe?) to recognize the strength of the theory, had scientific thought been the dominant ‘climate' of that age. 

So to say that religion challenges itself and evolves through inquiry the same way EVERYTHING else does?  You must recognize that this is false.  Religion, in general, is slow to change.  Too slow.  Too slow to admit DOUBT, even, and what is the harm in DOUBT?  Doubt is simply an avenue to more accurate knowledge, but it has been systematically removed from much religious discourse and definitely from mainstream religious practice.  That's why according to Gallup in 2004, 35 percent of Americans believed that the Bible is the literal word of the Creator of the Universe, while only 17 percent of Americans DOUBTED that there is a personal God at all. 

So, no.  I don't think that religion evolves through inquiry the way everything else does.  And I think there is a Mt. Everest sized pile of evidence to back my theory up. 

As for Religion without Dogma, I'd say that it is, by my definition, not really possible.  Religion has boundaries.  Religion makes doctrine based claims about the nature of things.  

Any ‘religion' that doesn't make any claims about the nature of the world, and doesn't claim that there is more wisdom in their ‘process' than in all other processes, and doesn't judge anyone based on any ancient doctrine, and doesn't claim anything concrete about the nature of God or the supposed afterlife....  Well, that's not a religion.  

That's just contemplative living. 

And contemplative living is FINE BY ME!  You want to pursue transcendent experiences?  You want to seek to connect with nature?  You want to meditate and quiet your mind?  You want to ATTEMPT to connect with a ‘spiritual realm'.  GO FOR IT!  I'm behind you 100%.  But as soon as you take those experiences and make the enormous leap to being dogmatic in any way... well, then we will butt heads.  And this is why I butt heads with religion in general, because religion in general does this WAY, WAY too often.   

I disagree with you that the ‘religious thinkers' that spent their lives trying articulate that which cannot (yet) be articulated, and spent their lives trying to show people an honest path to enlightenment, and spent their lives trying to describe a (theoretical) world apart from the one we can see and touch, and in so doing provided a model for how to live a good, liberated life were in the realm of RELIGION.  

These men were obviously THINKERS above all else.  And, I would argue that they still could have had a concept of another ‘world', a liberated life, and a path to genuine enlightenment without any real religious belief.  The difference is, they could have come to these ideas through THEORY.  Not through claims.  And to the degree that their model was painted by their doctrine?  

Dogma & doctrine... these were things that provided boundaries to where & how they defined this ‘liberated & honest' life.  These are the foundations of religion.  And this is why I think religion is a problem.  It holds back our best & brightest.  It gives them specific boundaries.  It leads these otherwise intelligent & deeply thoughtful men to claim some of the things that I quoted previously. 

The contemplative life does not.  It is free thinking.  It is comfortable with theory.  It is a life without artificial boundaries. 

Your comments on reality are odd, to me.  Science is the explanation of reality as we can BEST understand at the present time.  After that, there is a theoretical realm, a realm that can only be theoretical, because we cannot KNOW it.  Rumi and Eckhart may seem much more enlightening to you, but to attach Reality with a capital R to their thoughts?  That MUST be a theoretical Reality you are speaking of, right?  It must be that a Reality that jives with your ‘feelings'.  Your intuitions.  

I think it's fine to have these strong intuitions!  My advice would be:  Follow those intuitions.  Follow your feelings.  But test them.  Revisit them.  Do not let them take the shape of a religion by adhering to a particular intuition & making it dogmatic.  Don't pretend that your feelings should ever be presented as anything but personal feelings, theories, hunches, intuitions.  Those are valuable things.  So valuable!  But to present those things as counter-CLAIMS to what has been proven about the only Reality we can KNOW (through the process of identifying a theory and testing it), this must be Theoretical.  

And so it is, that at the core of my beef with religion, lies the general unwillingness to admit that their doctrines and beliefs are simply theory.

I'm glad you agree that religion is easier to twist & manipulate than science.  And I absolutely get that political expediency is often the cause behind many of the twisted, authoritarian ideologies we see today.  I absolutely get that expediency will continue to be the cause behind many attempts to manipulate & twist reality, in religion, science, literature, media, etc. 

This is why it is so important for us to treat CNN like theory, the Catholic Church like theory, FoxNews like theory, the Mormon religion as theory, the BBC as theory, and Islam as theory.... EVERYTHING.  Everything is theory.  

If your theory can hold its own in the competitive marketplace of ideas, SO BE IT!  My observations tell me that religion will not compete very well.  At least not as I define religion (as opposed to a contemplative lifestyle).  Most religion competes better when it is successful in getting people NOT to question it. 

About nuclear technology, since you brought it up.  I do hold science accountable for the discovery of nuclear technology.  I hold PEOPLE in general (scientists included) responsible (expediency rearing its ugly head again) for the use of said technology.  The technology has been used to create weapons of mass destruction.  It has also been used to power millions of homes.  If you want to talk about NEUTRAL, science is neutral.  It simply chases knowledge.  Then after the knowledge is gained, those scientists become philosophers (which is a bit like the idea of The Third Culture, by John Brockman), and engage politicians, religious zealots and the common man in getting to decide what to do with said technology.  

It IS a mighty shame that nuclear power is used for destruction and not production, and it is my theory that if religion were not so dominant, our fear of nuclear annihilation would be greatly diminished.  I would bet my right arm that if you surveyed everyone in the world, you would find out that those who want nuclear arms proliferation the most, would be those who are the LEAST scientific in their quest for knowledge.  And, I'd bet, they'd be the most dogmatic & radical in their beliefs (primarily religious beliefs).  Armageddon doesn't scare people who already TRULY believe they are ‘saved'. 

One last thing before I close.  You said you are a teacher, and I respect that greatly.  I truly do.  You and I very likely DO have the same goal (making the world a better place).  

Not that you are this way, but I remember many of my teachers in high school (I went to a small, private boarding school near Philadelphia that happened to be highly religious as well).  When I was there, we had chapel every morning before school, and chapel every school night in the boys dormitory.  We also were required to attend church every Sunday, and were required to take 2-3 religion classes per week, which were taught by clergymen.  That's 13-14 REQUIRED religious activities per week.  527 per school year.  Not to mention all the religious banter, non-required activities, and the pervasive religious tone that seeped into every waking minute of my life.  

This is inescapable indoctrination.  Especially when you consider that rarely, if ever, was any of the doctrine/dogma at my school ever presented as truly scientific THEORY.  The ministers just KNEW (or at least acted as if) it was true.  The teachers BELIEVED (or at least acted as if) and supported the ministers arrogance.  And the kids, ages 14-18 in the dormitory?  They were asked to actually stand in front of their peers and preach the word of God on a regular basis.  Sure we were challenged to think for ourselves, but when you are required to be preached at 527 times in a school year, your thoughts are not your own, and to do ANYTHING but conform was highly uncomfortable, at best.  Again, this was MY experience, and I'm fully willing to admit that I bought it hook, line & sinker while I was there.  It wasn't until later in life that I stopped to consider whether I really KNEW, what I thought I knew. 

My humble message to you as a teacher, would be to take a look at your surroundings.  Maybe you teach at a religious school.  Maybe this type of thing is going on around you on a daily basis.  If so, I would simply ask that you require the theoretical ideas that are presented each day to be presented as such.  As theory. 

In the meantime, I'll do the same... and then some.

CCD,
Ben

La charla ha desaparecido de nuestra sociedad. Lejos está el tiempo en que las gentes al verano solían sentarse a las puertas de las casas después de la caída del sol, para tomando el fresco charlar por charlar entre sí.

Primero fue la televisión y el SEAT 600, después las vacaciones y más tarde la segunda residencia, los que han acabado con un sistema cultural que, era y es, la charla.

Lo peor no es que la charla haya desaparecido de nuestro entorno social sino que, no ha tenido sustitución. La televisión deja mucho que desear en cuanto ha llenar un espacio cultural. Y es una pena porque es el medio mediático  ideal para desarrollar la cultura pero, se ha convertido en un medio de propaganda. La llegada del automóvil que, en un principio se esperaba como la panacea de los viajes, se ha visto que no es así, porque lo mejor para viajar sigue siendo el transporte público.

A pesar de todo la charla no tiene porque estar reñida con la llegada de los, llamémoslo de esa manera, nuevos adelantos. Es una lástima que la charla no sea hoy uno de los principales actos de ocio en nuestro entorno.

Mi punto de vista en lo referente  a la cultura pasa por que no todo a de ser conocimiento. No porque un individuo posea carrera universitaria, una o varias, tiene que ser más culto. Para mi la cultura es algo más simple, es saber debatir ideas con claridad, cada uno las suyas, respetando las de los demás y  esperando que las suyas también sean respetadas.

Es bonita la charla de tertulia entre amigos, familiares o simplemente con desconocidos que en un momento de la vida se encuentran en un mismo lugar y, que quizás no se vuelvan a ver.

Charlas en la que cada cual explica sus propias experiencias que la vida le ha otorgado hasta ese momento. Los relatos de los sinsabores y las alegrías de los demás han de servir para enriquecernos de ideas ante nuevos avatares que nos proporcione la vida.

La charla, también ha de servir para unirnos como ciudadanos de clase ante las otras capas de la sociedad. Me refiero sobre todo a la clase obrera ante la clase capitalista especuladora, el neoliberalismo. 

Echo en falta las charlas a las que nunca pude acudir.

Successful Methods of Public Speaking

A Classic Book on the ART of ORATORY

This book by Grenville Kleiser is a Classic indeed. Its explains the A to Z of the Art of Public Speaking. It offers some exquisite selections and abstracts for practicing various moods,mods and styles of delivering an astounding Speech. Equally good for beginners as well as for experts . Its a must have for those who want to excel and master THE Art of ORATORY !!!

successful-methods-of-public-speaking.pdf

Best of Luck !!!

   As of today, it appears my theological opponents have officially ceased making defamatory remarks about me on their forum.  Therefore, I am taking this as an olive-branch, and will no longer be posting on the subject.  As far as I'm concerned, the matter is over.

  Anyone who's been in the side-lines keeping track of things here, will know that this entire controversy started when I politely issued a debate challenge to Dee Dee Warren on June 22, 2008.  Following my second email after her initial response, she accused me of using an "inappropriate" tone, and the allegations have mounted from there.

  I started this blog partly to defend myself from her allegations, but also to inform the public of her refusal to deal with certain issues collateral to the debate challenge.  Not once did Dee Dee touch these issues, even though many of them involve her own ministerial activities.  Instead of openly addressing anything I said, she has engaged in a nearly month-long spree of accusatory behavior.

  I'm hoping that anyone with an interest in these matters will take the time to research what actually occurred between Warren and myself, rather than simply take her word for it.  The materials are all here, and include portions of email correspondence, quotations from articles, and written defenses against various allegations that she and Roderick have brought against me.

  Although I bear no personal animosity toward my accusers, I do feel they greatly discredited themselves by turning a theological controversy into a personal mudslinging war.  While in the early stages of this affair I strove for a personal reconciliation along Biblical lines, my efforts were treated with such smarmy and ill-mannered derision, that any kind of Scriptural resolution of the issue was rendered impossible.

  I've gone through some tough personal battles in my life, and am not one to hold grudges against others.  I do, however, demand personal fair-play from my supposed "friends."  The lack of honest and upright dealing I have seen during this controversy has really opened my eyes to the practices of those who smugly hide behind the name "orthodox," while using their web machinery to ridicule those of opposite opinion.  Unite and conquer?  With their methods, the only thing they can expect is more division.

  This will be my last post on this blog.  I have already cross-posted most of the relevant material elsewhere, and reserve the right to comment on the theological beliefs and ethical practices of Warren & Edwards.  However, I will do this at my other blogs, and only when relevant to the material I am writing about. 

   I will also ignoring all incoming comments of a hostile, abusive, or non-constructive nature.   In time it is possible that this particular blog may be taken down.  However, because of the nature of the allegations made against myself, I have considered it expedient to continue running it, until I feel the public has had ample time to access the information it needs to know.

Earlier today I had a nice long talk with an Obama supporter.  I know people on the internet call them BOTS. Though I never understood why until today, BOTS has to stand for Barrack Obama Tortured Souls since this one I was talking to was totally drinking kool aide!

He walks up to me and says, “I know you hate Obama and I want to know why.  I want one good, solid reason why you would not vote for him.”  I said, “Don’t flatter him as I don’t like him well enough to hate him.”  The bot replies, “Seriously, give me one reason why you would not vote for him.”  So I stopped what I was doing and said, “I don’t like the people he associates with such as Ayers, Wright, Dohrn, Soros, Farrakhan, his nasty wife Michelle and others.”  The bot replies, “You cannot judge a person by people they know.”  Then I responded, “How about the fact that all major terrorists have endorsed him.”  Bot replied, “Oh isn’t that wonderful as they know he will talk to them and bring about world peace and they just love him for this!”  I am like, “You can’t be serious.  They know the guy is a push over and they want BO in office as he does not have a clue what he is doing. This idiot will start a nuclear war with Iran the way he is going.”  “Oh No!” said this young bot, “they understand him and understand he is bringing about hope and change and a new world so this is not a good enough reason not to vote for him.” By now I am irritated and replied, “How about the fact that he flip flops and lies constantly, is out for himself and does not care who he walks on to get what he wants."  “This is not a reason” the bot said, “you need to give me one good solid reason not to vote for him.”  “Ok, then try this” I said, “he has cheated his way to the top, he covers his tracks up wherever he goes, he is not who he says he is and best of all he is totally WEAK.”   So this the bot got very angry. He then yells at me, “You are not an enlightened one!  It is impossible to talk to a Hillbilly and you are just that! You hate him because you do not see his wonder and how great he is!”  To this I responded, “I would rather be a Hillbilly than to drink Kool-Aide.  I would not vote for this loser if he was the only candidate on the planet.  I love my country and put it first. This moron is a danger to this country and will NEVER get my vote.”  The Bot glared at me threw his hands up in the air and walked off shaking his head yelling, “I can’t talk to you about this you are just too stupid to listen!” 

As I watched him walk off into oblivion I was stunned.  I have dealt with the numerous death threats on this site and the illogical reasoning of these bots but this just blew me away.  I guess the thing here is I am not enlightened enough to see the wonder of Obama which I feel is a great gift from the powers that be.  The way this man is treated he acts like he has already won this race and McCain just needs to step out of the way.  I keep asking what he knows that we don’t.  Is it that our votes are not needed and he has the election rigged the way he did with the Dem nomination process?  If Howard Dean, Brazile and Pelosi had not stepped in and the media had been in just the least bit fair to Hillary Clinton. She would be the nominee right now. But she was shafted, railroaded and cheated.  With Hillary we would have had a Democrat for President this time in the white house.  Now they have removed this chance to put their anointed one in place which if the election is not rigged, he does not stand a chance of winning. 

Some rules for voting.  Make sure when you vote that your vote is counted.  Do not hand it to anyone you suspect is an Obama person as they will be in many of the voting places and especially in large cities.  Be alert for and to voter fraud. Immediately call it in if you witness it.  There have already been reports of new voter registrations being found that are not valid and not just a few of them either.   Remember the biggest thing is to get out to vote. Also take everyone with you that you can think of to vote.  The only way to beat Obama is to out vote him.  It would be soooo sweet to see him lose on Election night so let’s get moving here and recruit people to vote for John McCain. Get this idiot guy voted down.  Do not trust the polls as they are slanted in Obama’s favor just like everything else in this fraud election has been.  Let’s get Hillary back on the ticket in 2012 since we know that she is counting on us. We know so because this article excerpt proves it:

Hillary Campaign Aides Buy 2012 Website

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/

In response, I don't think I'm saying that all religions are exactly the same, except in one key area.  Every religion requires a monumental leap of blind faith, on some level.  In one way or another, to buy a religion, you've got to sell your rational mind to the 'devil'.

The most 'rational' religions boast that "they don't teach creationism" or that "they don't teach Jihad".  Congrats.  But this only lets them off the hook in the "Blatantly Obvious False Claims" category. 

Every religion.  EVERY religion makes HUNDREDS of unfounded claims about the nature of reality.  This is not ignorant.  This is fact.  My problem with religion, which I think you missed, is in how religion differs with science in coming to 'knowledge'.

Religions attempt to get people to 'know' something through 'belief', regardless of the veracity of the belief claims.  Belief.  Religion is about belief.  Religion tells you 'how it is'.  (and don't confuse religion with personal, transcendent experiences).

While religion is doing its thing, rational inquiry seeks to ACTUALLY KNOW things as best we can.  Men and women, on equal footing (unique when compared to most religions), seek to understand the mysteries of life.  They have an idea, they test it, they ask others for their opinion, they test those ideas, and they create theories.  When they are proven wrong, they accept (sometimes with great eagerness) their mistakes, and get on with the job at hand, namely, continuing to EXPLAIN 'how it is'.

The difference lies between EXPLAINING how it is, vs. TELLING us how it is.  Religion tells us.  Science and the competitive marketplace of ideas which it represents, they try to EXPLAIN life, to the best of their ability.

I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of religious history is limited (not by comparison to the average person, but in comparison to say, Karen Armstrong, whose book, "A History of God", I'm reading right now.)  It matters not, though.  This IS a simple topic.  If you're looking for the truth, then get ready to modify, correct, edit, revisit, theorize and test your ideas.  Religion does not do this.  That's why the books in religion never change, and the 'books' in science change almost DAILY! (www.sciencedaily.com, for instance)

"This is not to say that the deepest concerns of the faithful, whether moderate or extreme, are trivial or even misguided.  There is no denying that most of us have emotional and 'spiritual' (my quotes) needs that are now addressed - however obliquely and at a terrible price - by mainstream religion.  And these are needs that a mere understanding of our world, scientific or otherwise, will never fulfill.  There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life.  But we will find that it REQUIRES no faith in untestable propositions (insert my examples... young Earth creationism, 73 virgins, the nature of hell, women not being fit for ministry or any of the millions of untestable props that any religion puts forth) for us to do this."  -Sam Harris

Ty, you ask, "Did I, at any point, say that these guys (referring to the people you listed) state only true, reasonable statements?  Do the proponents of your way of thinking only state that which is true?"

No!  Of course you didn't say that.  You're not stupid.  You know that religious people can't tell the difference between accurate information and absolute fantasy!  They will just say what they think, (or worse, what is written in some ancient text) and they state this as fact, without testing it.

The proponents of my way of thinking?  At least they ATTEMPT to state that which is true by means of an honest process.  That, again, is the KEY difference between a randomly selected preist/minister (even if selected from the top 10% of rational religions) and a randomly selected physicist, for instance.  Odds are, you will find that at some point, the religious man begins to make claims about the nature of reality that he has not (and in some cases CAN not) test or be sure about.  Yet he states these claims as if they are God's truth (because he BELIEVES, mostly through a lifetime of ignorance and a process of brainwashing & repetition).

The randomly selected physicist?  He is too humble to assert fact.  And definitely not silly enough to say, "Well, you just need to have more faith."  No, the scientist will continue to test his theories until the mountain of evidence he has compiled URGES him to take a stronger stance.  Science is so humble that the theory of evolution is still called a THEORY (which leads ignorant yokels the world over, to dismiss it).

Scientists will be vetted through the process of history in their time.  And history will tell us if they ended up being 'right' or 'wrong' on their theories.  But a REAL scientist doesn't need to be 'vetted through the process of history'.  They are vetted through the process of HONESTY.  Double blind studies, peer review, journals, websites like www.edge.org ... a competitive marketplace of ideas!  These things keep science as HONEST as possible.  What is there to keep religion honest?  Fear of hellfire doesn't seem to be working.  The only process by which we can keep religion honest is... you guessed it!  Critical Thinking!

Science, if you will.

I do NOT dismiss the bodies of work produced by Aquinas, etc. and I apologize if my quoting them unfavorably seems 'unfair' to you.  I challenge you to quote Daniel Dennett as unfavorably, though!

I simply assert that we can move past these impressive men and their thoughts.  I KNOW they said plenty of wise things, but Ty, like I said, "I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that their brand of 'critical inquiry' was free from the context in which Religion had infected their minds.  I simply think that we've done away with most, if not all viable NEED for religion and religious dogma.  Most, if not all religious dogma is full of patently false claims about reality, and has been throughout history.  At what point has religious dogma provided us with critical inquiry and new thinking that we could not have had without it?"  Can you please answer that question?  And I mean the PROCESS of religion.  What do we get from this that we don't have a rational need to CHECK?

Sure there have been good and bad things done in the name of religion.  Anything can be done in the name of religion.  Religion can be ANYTHING.  It certainly doesn't need to be true, or even attempt to SHOW that it is true.  Just because good and bad have come from religions doesn't mean that it is NEUTRAL!  Absolutely not, because it is a BROKEN PROCESS for accessing information about the world we live in.  Religions have proven OVER AND OVER that you can't accurately access real information using their methods.  This isn't neutral, this is broken.  Dead.  Religions are (in dramatically different ways) a failed attempt at explaining the very real, transcendent and meaningful feeling we have about our existence.

About explaining what happened in the name of science in the late 1800's.  I don't attribute it directly to religion, as you insinuate.  What I said was (I'll repeat myself since you couldn't have read it):

"I would argue that any time Darwin's theory of natural selection is used to promote death and destruction, the problem was not TOO MUCH rational and critical inquiry.  Just the opposite!  In fact, I would argue that the climate of 'accepting things as fact without inquiry, but from 'belief', is a climate that religious dogma promotes and thrives in.  The same is not true of science.  It is in this blind climate (whether or not a religion is at the heart of the action), this lack of the scientific process, that almost all atrocities on Earth have been performed under.  Any ideology can be used for destrucitve purposes, but the easiest climate in which to promote your ideology's destructive ends, is one where folks have been under-educated and taught to believe, not OVER-educated and taught to question!"

The problem is, the general population of the world, in a climate where faith & belief (in God, in a political ideology, in ANYTHING) are championed, that population is EASILY MANIPULATED.  This is a climate under which atrocities can more easily be performed.  You are absolutely right that it was powerful people using the latest ideas to justify destructive actions.  Of course powerful people (GWB, for instance) need to become more powerful, more influential, less tolerant, etc.  Naturally they're going to USE and TWIST religion to suit those goals.  THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT.  Religion, my friend, is easily used.  It is easily twisted.

Science is NOT as easily twisted.  If the children of the world were brought up to question things, to be curious, to investigate the truth, the CLIMATE that I'm speaking of would be VERY different (and would have been throughout history).  In a climate where you are taught to absolutely trust/follow your politicians, preists and other leaders, of course it's easy to manipulate & take advantage of that trust.  All I'm saying is that manipulation, twisting, etc... all of that survives MUCH more easily when the scientific process isn't championed among all citizens.

Humans CAN twist the scientific method.  But you have to admit, when your audience is continually skeptical, it takes MUCH more evidence to get them to do your bidding.  How can it be that you would argue the opposite?  It can't be.  You'd have to be cuckoo for Coco Puffs.

Since you brought it up, I'll let you know that it is a bit of an joke between non-believers that whenever they debate religion with a religious apologist, they hope that said apologist tries to use Mao and Stalin as examples of 'the problem when you let science run things'.  Not that you did this exact thing, but the argument is a pathetic one. 

Again, the problem in Russia and China was not that we had TOO MUCH critical inquiry and science!!  The answer to bad science (there is plenty, click on Ken Ham under the People links) is more science.  Better science.  NOT religion.  To fight bad science (which almost all religions are an example of), you must participate in the scientific process.  The problem in Mao's China and Stalin's Russia wasn't that they're social & political actions were a result of people thinking TOO critically.  

Would you say, that to fight ignorance, we must use unfounded claims about the nature of God as a central building block to our solution?  Would you say religion is the answer to ignorant destruction?  I fear your answer, but I'd say that the best process by which to fight ignorance is the process that best leads us to understanding reality.  And this process is aptly named The Scientific Process.

Your quote at the end is telling, Ty.  "The stuff of which is most real, to me, cannot be accurately communicated, much less scientifically measured."

This is the best way I can describe why religion is a problem.  People, instead of being honest and saying, "I don't know", and then THEORIZING about these feelings, have founded religions, and then tried to describe the things which cannot be accurately communicated or measured as FACTUAL claims about reality because it "just seems so real" to them.  (which, it turns out, is almost an attempt to be scientific.  It's just a MISERABLE attempt.)

Like Sam Harris said in 'The End of Faith':

"It is important to realize that the distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and spiritual experiences from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being honest about what we can reasonably conclude on their basis.  There are good reasons to believe that people like Jesus and the Buddha weren't talking nonsense when they spoke about our capacity as human beings to transform our lives in rare and beautiful ways.  But any genuine exploration of ethics or the contemplative life demands the same standard of reasonableness and self-criticism that animate all intellectual discourse."

I'll leave it at that for now.  Please.  Disagree.

CCD,

Ben

peace"

Tyklip, 

It would be greatly appreciated =].

FYI: This speech was made by Obama in Colorado Springs on July 2, 2008.

Obama stated, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Thus a more Militant U.S?? The U.S as a Police State?

Where does this money come from now???  Why is this needed???

To control Americans as King Moron Obama wishes???

 SCARY!!!!!!!!

I will keep everyone posted. I a bit scared, this is new territory for me. I am used to blathering in writing - doing it verbally gives me the stomach twitters. Actually, and this isn’t a brag or anything, I have been told that I am a very good public speaker. I have spoken at several women’s retreats and the like, and have always received high praises, but I am ready to faint each time right before and my legs shake so badly I am scared I am really going to fall. I have always been that way - no matter how many times I speak. When I got married, the poor preacher took a look at me for the vow portion and saw how badly I was shaking and how green I got, he was totally scared I was going to pass out or bolt.

One good thing about podcasting is that I can edit out the crappy parts. I have this odd habit of crying whenever I get worked up. It just happens - whether I am sad, angry, happy - extreme emotions make me cry. My husband has said that he knows that I am really getting into it in a Paltalk debate when he hears my voice thicken. I just can’t help it. Believe it or not I hate confrontation. I do it, because at times I feel I have to, and at others, I feel I am called to do so. Whenever I have to confront anyone over anything - like even a dispute with a co-worker, I would rather eat my own foot out of a bear trap, and of course I end up crying.

Yep, the Preterist Warrior Princess is a crybaby. You heard it first here. I consider it a blessing from God that I can feel such strong emotions though. It moves me to deep heartfelt prayer and empathy. Because I have lost my own parents, whenever anyone else is dealing with that situation, I immediately cry with them. The empathy is so strong. Anyways I am babbling.