Danzarth

I have a manual meat grinder that uses #10 / #12 standard size grinding plates. I am looking for pasta die plates that will fit in the grinder, but so far have been unable to find any. Does anyone know where to find them?

I purchased a package of chyu shih liao soup mix today at a local Asian market. There do not seem to be any preparation instructions on the package, in any language. I figured I would be able to find some how-to's online, but (surprisingly) there don't seem to be any out there. I would greatly appreciate any help you all can give.

All religions make differing claims about the nature of the world/universe, the existence and character of gods or super-beings, the purpose for life, etc. The differences are irreconcilable; if one religion is true, then the others must necessarily be false.

Since all reasons for belief in any particular religion fail to meet their burden of proof, or even to provide compelling evidence, what possible way is there for a non-believer to discern the "correct" system of beliefs?

Often, when debating the subject of religion, someone will ask the question, "Where did our morality come from, if not from god?"

My intent is not to get into the details of how our present moral code came into existence, but to ask:

Who is more righteous, the man who performs good acts because he believes it is the right thing to do, or the man who performs good acts because he believes it is what his god wants?

The implication of the theist standpoint seems to be that if god weren't watching all the time, all of humanity would descend into savagery, raping and killing as they pleased.

Personally, I can't help but be offended by this notion. I seem to be able to resist the urge to rape and pillage, even though I do not believe there is any all-powerful sky daddy keeping tabs on me.

Thoughts?

Just trying to get a better understanding of the theistic world view. I'd like to know what you think god is.

Please don't tell me he created the universe, etc. I don't want to know what you think he/she/it/they did, just what it is. In what form does it exist?

A common statement by theists is the simple statement, "God exists."

This statement is usually a conversation stopper. To the theist, it is a sum total of all arguments, but to the atheist it is semantically nil. As an atheist, I understand neither the being God, nor the way in which the word 'exist' is used.

Leaving the definition of god aside for the moment, I would like to hear a theistic definition for the term 'existence'. I define existence as that which has observable manifestations in the real world. Existence implies a referent to which you can point and say "This object exists". If this is not the case with god, how do you define existence, and how do you differentiate things that exist from those that do not exist?

Of course, I am familiar with the argument that ideas exist, but do not have a referent outside the human mind. But this argument cannot apply to god, as ideas do not have any direct influence on the physical world, let alone the creation of the entire universe.

It seems to me that these days people believe that they have all kinds of "rights" - from a right to have a 15 minute break at work, to a right to not breathe smoke from someone else's cigarettes.

I think this sort of thinking is dangerous, as it can lead to tyrannical over-legislation - the beginnings of which we are most likely seeing today.

As a supporting argument, I submit this quote, taken from a science-fiction novel, of all things, in which the narrator expounds on the idea that human beings have no natural rights whatsoever.

"Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

-R Heinlein

I've been watching a lot of interviews and lectures featuring Prof. (Dr.?) Richard Dawkins, and I find his statements about evolution to be quite inspiring.

In one interview, he is asked where atheists get their moral code, if not from god. He responded, and I'm paraphrasing here, that everyone, not just atheists, gets their moral code through evolution; man is a social creature, and values certain things like life and freedom, because these values are beneficial to our survival as a species. This is also stated in his book, The God Delusion.

Later in the program, in an attempt to refute Mr. Dawkins's perspective, another guest makes a point that ritual worship is a universal human trait. While I find it difficult to believe that every human being in every culture feels the need to take part in ritual worship, it does seem pervasive in all cultures (at least in my experience). It certainly seems that the vast majority of people feel a need to believe in something "greater than themselves".

While listening to the interviews, the two perspectives seemed to combine, and I surmised that if man is almost universally worshipful/religious, then there must be some evolutionary or survival value in this behavior.

My question is this: What possible value could there be to mankind, as a species, to take part in ritual worship? If such evolutionary value ever existed, does it still apply today? Why or why not?

Please note that I am not out to debate the truth or validity of any particular religious view.

What are some creative ways to tell someone you don't like them? Preferably without profanity. Best answer will be chosen for artistic use of language.

In every religion there is a very small minority who push things too far and become radicals and terrorists. Islam is the easy one to pick on right now, but christians and jews have all had their fair share of whacked out fringe groups. Like the guys who blow up abortion clinics, etc.

Is there any record of a radical anti-religious group?

How many of you non-believers feel strongly enough about your beliefs that you would be willing to engage in physical violence?

After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

There has been a lot of discussion in the news and on the street in the past few years about the government's role in, and ability to control, marriage in the United States. To me this seems ridiculous since marriage is a private matter between two consenting adults. Should the government be able to control marriage? What are some other alternatives?

There has been a lot of discussion in the news and on the street in the past few years about the government's role in, and ability to control, marriage in the United States. To me this seems ridiculous since marriage is a private matter between two consenting adults. Should the government be able to control marriage? What are some other alternatives?

It seems to me that most believers in Abrahamic religions think that the questioning, doubt, or disbelief of their "truth" is a new trend. I submit to you that disbelief in gods is older than both christianity and islam, and possibly judaism as well. Men with rational minds have always questioned the nonsensical ramblings of superstitious simpletons. As a supporting argument, I submit this question, asked over 2,300 years ago. There has never been a satisfactory answer from any deist. Answer well.

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus

why do you own a computer? Why do you drive a car? Why do you have cell-phones, and bluetooth headsets, and microwaves?

You are so ready to decry scientific knowledge as evil, because it contradicts "god's eternal truth", yet you do not hesitate for an instant to take advantage of the fruits of scientific knowledge.

Don't you think that's a little hypocritical?

Why don't you herd sheep for a living like people did in the good old days, and cook all your food in a clay fire pit, and live in a mud hut? That life doesn't sound appealing to you?

Is there anyone in this forum who actually cares what the opposing side has to say? Is anyone going to change their beliefs based on something they read in Y!A? Why do we bother posting deep and meaningful questions when we know we are just inviting ignorant replies?

If Jesus is the one and only way to find peace and happiness in the afterlife, then all the people below will be punished for all eternity for failing accept him into their hearts. Is this the will of a loving creator?

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh, 1940 – and Grameen Bank

For their efforts through microcredit to create economic and social development from below.

Wangari Maathai,, Kenya, 1940-

For her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace.

Shirin Ebadi, Iran, 1947-

For her efforts for democracy and human rights, especially the rights of women and children, in Iran and the Muslim world in general.

Kim Dae Jung, Republic of Korea, 1925-.

For his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.

Most people think it is a bad idea to speak about certain things with polite acquaintances - people you are friendly with who are not your close friends - in order to avoid offense and arguments.

Politics and religion are the big two.

What are some other things you won't talk about out of politeness?

Assuming your marriage is over with no chance of repair, and the only reason you are still legally married is bacause the paperwork isn't done yet...

Does anyone see any moral issues with beginning a new relationship while still legally married to your ex?