homersapien

Verified Member
  • Content count

    26,885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

homersapien last won the day on August 21 2016

homersapien had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

937 Sterling

About homersapien

  • Rank
    Seamstress

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,794 profile views
  1. Agreed. I thought I was cynical, but the Trump phenomenon has been revelatory. I wasn't cynical at all. In fact, I was naively optimistic about people. Or at least, I have discovered there are a lot more irrational people than I ever dreamed.
  2. Sorry but you seem to be confusing the unknown with the supernatural. Science deals with the unknown by studying it. Even if a scientist believes in the supernatural, science does not consider it. It is not a scientific option. Science cannot test the supernatural by definition. And no one can "comprehend" the supernatural, also by definition. You are now confusing the terms "comprehend" with "belief". But you are right in that I don't really understand belief in the supernatural. Like I said, I apparently didn't inherent that part of human psychology (along with a lot of other people). Finally, I am agnostic when it comes to the proposition of a supernatural creator, while you are the one insisting that the supernatural (God) is fact. I'd say that makes me more open minded than you, not to mention less threatening.
  3. Science informs us generally about how the first people came into being and I accept that. While I can certainly understand how a scientifically literate person who is religiously inclined might see a message or allegory in a creation myth, I don't understand how anyone could accept it literally for obvious reasons. And of course my beliefs don't determine what you believe. But if you are willing to accept the myth as literally true then you either 1) don't understand the science or 2) understand science but reject it, by definition. Good luck with explaining the latter to anyone. I will be the first to admit I didn't get the "God gene". I found I didn't have the capacity to believe from about the age of 12. That's not to say I have definitive feelings one way or the other about God, I just don't "know". I think people who think they do "know" have a natural proclivity to believe. I am OK with not knowing. I don't feel any compulsion or need to fill ignorance with superstition. The mystery intrigues me but it doesn't frighten me. (As an aside, I feel I should mention that talking about creation of the "first woman" - especially as related in the bible myth - is inherently sexist.)
  4. Well, not everyone is content having a narcissistic psychopath as president.
  5. Says the guy who believes Trump had more people attend his inauguration than any other president in history and he actually won the popular majority if you discount the 3 million fraudulent votes.....
  6. We should ban Brits?
  7. Yes, the consistency - and irony - of Thomas's ruling was the point of the article. What you say is true, but it might also generally strengthen the Democrats - or anyone else - who feels they need to make a broader appeal to their electorate. It will dilute both sides which is the goal if we want to avoid extremes.
  8. 1) First, to be technical, it was a generalized statement and I consisider it valid regardless if anyone has said it or not. But, you were clearly contrasting literal biblical accounts of creation with the science on an equivalent basis. I simply rephrased that contrast in a way you don't care for. Now if I am misunderstanding your intent, then please clarify. 2) Anyone who literally accepts a biblical myth of creation over the current science is rejecting science as the definitive source about what we actually know about how we got here. But you make a good point. That doesn't logically require they are scientifically illiterate but it certainly suggests it. The only other option is they have decided - for whatever reason - that an ancient religious myth is a more valid source of such information than is science. (Thus my assumption of illiteracy.) This assumption is based on my feeling that it's hard to imagine anyone - including the religious - who wouldn't totally "wonder" at what we now know about the universe via science if they were really familiar with it. It seems to me it would be "natural" for any sort of thinking deist to see scientific revelation as a revelation of God's work than arbitrarily reject it for the sake of ancient stories in manuscripts which - obviously - cannot be literal. 3) Science does not concern itself with the supernatural, only the natural. If a "supernatural event" occured, science could not address it, by definition. But if something "ACTUALLY HAPPENS" then yeah, of course science can evaluate it. That's what science does. But keep in mind that science may or may not have an explanation. But science - by definition - cannot even consider a supernatural cause. (This pretty much sums up the current situation with the "big bang" theory.)
  9. To further illustrate the complexity of the problem - and the compliciancy of some Islamic societies - this guy was home grown. It would be soooo much easier if we could bomb some Middle Eastern enclave from which he emitted. We (meaning the world) have to address the social aspects (indoctrination) of radicalism that underlies terrorism of all varieties. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ariana-grande-concert-manchester-arena-bombing-suspect-salman-abedi-isis-claim/ LONDON -- Police on Tuesday identified the man who blew himself up the previous night at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, as 22-year-old Salman Abedi. CBS News confirmed Abedi was known to British authorities prior to the attack. An unnamed European security official told The Associated Press that Abedi was a Briton of Libyan descent.
  10. I agree with a Clarence Thomas decision! Hopefully this will ultimately lead to general reform in districting. Out currrent practices are destroying our government. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/in_cooper_v_harris_the_supreme_court_strikes_a_blow_against_racial_redistricting.html
  11. It's a tedious job, but someone has to do it. And you've been pulling more than your share of the load.
  12. So, had this not been leaked, it wouldn't have been a big deal? BRILLIANT !!!!! You have a keen eye for the obvious! Hell, we wouldn't know about it at all. Thats the purpose of leaks. And no one in the media has produced a transcript or tape, much less sworn testimony, so the claim the media had already "confirmed" the Israeli connection is ironically wrong. ("Ironically" because you are all to willing to simply dismiss the media if it suits you. I figured I needed to explain that.)
  13. Titan was obviously referring to confidential information for which there is no strategic reason to share with allies. You sound like a child. "But you said...."
  14. First, you need to study up on the term "terrorism". You are obviously confused about what it really means. It's not necessarily dependant on organizational size or quality or on any particular religious or racial/xenophobic obsession. Secondly, homegrown terrorism is certainly not insignificant. Just the opposite: Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11 .....Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0 Thirdly, my article was about the problem we have with recognizing homegrown terrorism and to contrast the rationality of that with the relative obsession we have with Islamist terrorism But thanks to you and Salty, my point is being made even more effectively than I could make it by your efforts to minimize this hate crime by comparing it to Daesh and the like. (Try telling that to the family of 2nd Lieutenant Collins) So thanks for assistance. You have both been very useful fools.