PS I notice that you did not reply directly to my post.

If socialized health care is good, why don't we do that for ALL necessities, including homes, clothing, groceries, energy, etc.? The fact is that socialism stifles innovation and entrepreneurism. Remember the USSR?

They're organized.

I get a lot of email from leftist organizations. I like to know what they're up to (keep your friends close and your enemies closer).

They're telling their Believers to get out in public and push their cause.

This is clearly the most corrupt, unethical, and inept Administration and Congress in the history of the USA.

"This child would not have died if we had Obamacare."

We no longer need radar to protect us from threats.

We have Obama.

As of January 20, 2009, all conflict and suffering in the world ceased, because The One became President.

Obama akbar
Obama akbar
Obama akbar

The US health care market subsidizes health care R&D for the rest of the world.

Basically, we pay to develop new drugs, treatments, procedures, etc.. Then, socialist countries buy products made for this market but they pay only the marginal cost, without paying for R&D.

If socialist countries had to pay their fair share of medical R&D, they'd go bankrupt within a year.

Consider that the GDP per capita in the USA is about 50% higher than in Italy ($47k vs 32K). Thus, many things are going to cost less there, especially those which are labor dependent or are not taxed heavily (like petroleum).

Too, compare the public debt as a percent of GDP:

Italy 110%
USA 40%

That debt is indeed a reflection of the supposedly cheap health care. The actual cost of Italian health care is much bigger. The cost of Italian health care is hidden in the country's HUGE public debt - which could very well destroy the country.

Data Source:
Italy: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worl...

I feel sorry for the Canadians, who for years have been coming south for decent medical treatment. What are they going to do when Obama screws that up for them? Even the head of one of the Provinces recently came here for a treatment that he couldn't get in Canada.

See: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/759760...

Maybe they could wade in dis river over ere.

;)

This forum needs smilies.

Meine Haustiermonitoreidechse wird Mary genannt.

The religious people I've talked to (and religious orators on TV) discuss their faith, which refers to a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I think that if we humans believe something long enough, we come to accept it as fact, even when it can be demonstrated as untrue.

This proclivity is especially true if we are taught something consistently throughout our youth (i.e., indoctrinated) or if we make some major commitment in our lives to a particular belief system (i.e., converted).

There have been believers and unbelievers since time began. I never understood why they would need the agnostic/atheist term to separate them even more.. It always sounded so arrogant to me.

There is a difference between agnostics and atheists.

Agnostics don't know if there is a deity or not. They think there might be one or more, they just don't know.

Atheists do not believe there are any deities.

There are also "hard" and "soft" atheists. I'm more of the latter.

The hard atheist is going to be in your face trying to convince you he is right, fighting to have scripture removed from courtroom walls, fighting against Christmas programs at K-12 schools, etc..

I would go along with using the term non-believer rather than unbeliever.

It doesn't make sense for some of us to say we've progressed beyond any others. That's just totally arrogant.

I agree that it's wrong for ANY people who can be classified by a common belief to assert that they are superior. In general, you're going to find that sense of superiority among the religious, however.

I have seen it in my neighborhood, where little kids have told my kids that they're going to hell because they don't believe. My fundamentalist neighbors believe that they are going to have superior lives - and deaths - because of their belief.

Also, think about those who believe in rapture. That's pretty superior, right?

Of course, some atheists and agnostics think they are superior. Some of that is just ego or rationalization.

However, if you examine the history of religion, it seems obvious to me that religion has changed as science has improved. People used to worship animals, idols, etc.. They sacrificed virgins to make it rain.

As science improved, it was harder to believe those older religions, so newer religions emerged which could withstand improved science. We now know that killing virgins doesn't make it rain, but instead it rains when meteorological conditions are right.

So, some of the sense of superiority of non-believers may come from the fact that one of the byproducts of science is the peeling back of the layers of religion. Those atheists expect that to continue until there is no more self-deception about religion.

I think of myself as incredibly ignorant. I think that the things we could learn about the universe are far beyond what we can even imagine.

Isn't atheism a belief system (since atheists are nothing more than people who don't believe in God) Is that a belief system in itself?

No, it's not, and I'll tell you why I believe that. First, that is a common argument posed by the religious. They like to think that non-belief is the equivalent of belief.

Let me give you an example of why non-belief and belief are not two sides of the same coin.

My neighbor tells me that he is sure there is a red/blue polka-dot elephant in my backyard. I go out and check. No elephant.

He says that the plants are as green as they are because of all the elephant manure. I tell him it's because I fertilized with Scott's.

He believes the elephant exists, I don't: He's a believer, I'm a non-believer.

He talks about the elephant frequently. He goes to meetings where they talk about it, he reads books about it, he gives money to its study, etc.. He KNOWS there is an elephant there and that if I just tried, I could believe it was there too.

I go out in the backyard and check. No elephant.

He is a believer in the elephant. But to say that my non-belief approaches his belief is really invalid. And, if you too do not believe there is a red/blue polka-dot elephant in my backyard, does that mean you have a belief system based on the non-belief about the elephant?

I don't walk around all day thinking about non-belief. I don't look at a sunset and say, "Look what wonders we have without a deity." I just don't think there is one - but my position does not rise to the level of belief.

This could explain the skulls and fossils they say are millions of years old.

I accept that the earth is probably about 4.5 billion years old and that dinosaurs roamed the earth during the Mesozoic Era (which began about 245 million years ago and lasted until about 65 million years ago).

I find no fault in Christian mythology for asserting that the earth was created in 7 days, because it can easily be argued that the length of the day may have been different.

Thank you for your inquiry, I appreciate your interest.