zoeboxcat

I'm not a "12 Step" person, although I do greatly respect AA and other 12 steps that help people overcome addictions.

I've been prescribed medical marijuana for a specific condition. I'm just wondering if anyone has any experience with this . . . I'm not a "12 Step" person, only because of the religious nature of the programs, although I do greatly respect AA and other 12 steps that help people overcome addictions.

Perhaps some do. I believe I would.

The backing of the entire government. Of course the responsibility would be great. But when they break into a house and take down several people, cussing at them and throwing them to the floor, it is really rather scary how much control they actually have.

I've given all I can

But we're still on the payroll

I want it so I believe it

I am the agnostic evolutionist pseudonym of a mega-church staff member. Either way, I spend all day answering religious/spiritual questions . . . just from opposing perspectives.

OK, the wolf is massive but due to a supernatural experience, is so smart that it has infiltrated mainstream human society. Now, I'm describing how smart it is, despite have a head the size of a . . . and that's the metaphor I need--something to accentuate the wolf's large head (hopefully something the shape of a massive wolf head).

(Objectivism as defined by philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand)

Personally, I agree with its fundamental tenets; I am having trouble with the leap from reason and perception to a social system of capitalism with very limited oversight. Couldn't objectivism be just as compatible with a more left-wing political view?

Just wondering about that whole "eventually be able to upload our minds and live forever in cyber space" hypothesis that gets thrown around.

A right answer = 10 points =)

My guess is no?

I'm sort of in between

A person feels as though it is unfair to be born into a system where he or she must choose to believe a subjective compulsion instead of reason or evidence (in order to have eternal bliss and life instead of eternal torture).

The question is this: What does the Bible say to that person? Is Paul's answer in Romans 9 applicable: "Who are you to question the God that created you (or the systems he has set in place)?"? Or, do Paul's words concern only the question of God's fairness in creating the unelected?

Paul writes that the wisdom of this world and of men is foolishness to God, and is tainted by a fallen, sinful, dark nature that chooses to worship creation rather than the creator. Does this mean that there is no such thing as an objective search for truth? Even many secular philosophers hold that objectivity cannot exist . . . I cannot yet agree. When objective perception and reason seem to contradict Scripture, how can it be fare to ask a person to choose to believe the compulsions of Scripture instead of the evidence?

What do U get out of it?

: )

High attempt to tell them how awesome they are for putting a repeat of South Park on later.

We humans have what is called a GLO gene. This gene produces vitamin C in other species, yet ours does not work. If there were an intelligent designer, why would he (or she . . . or it) design us with a faulty one? The only answer is that it was functional previously, and then became dysfunctional at some stage, after which it was passed on to all people. This is actually true, but it just so happens that our closest primate relatives—orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees—have the same faulty GLO gene, unlike other, distant primates (which have functional GLO genes). Kenneth R. Miller, in his book 'Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul', writes, "That means that the common ancestor in which the capacity to make vitamin C was originally lost wasn't a human, but a primate—an ancestor that, according to the advocates of intelligent design, we're not supposed to have. And there's the problem. (2008:85-87)"

I'm not really looking for a long dissertation about empirical knowledge vs. reason, or external evidence for the Bible (all kinds of religions have the same amount of competing external evidence) . . . just why you think that what you believe is actually, objectively true.

What is the purpose and benefit of having a great amount of random dust particles floating around in the air everywhere?