1. AAI 07

Comment #83089 by Juleofdenial on October 28, 2007 at 10:59 pm

What about the WIC (women, infants, and children) program that we have here in the States? I assume you'd say it's the woman's fault for having a child when she's not financially able to care for it, so the gov't shouldn't ensure that the child is fed?

If only that were exactly true. I've been on WIC and in reality could financially afford food and formula if I had to. The financial bar to meet in WIC is pretty high and allows many financially stable women to abuse the program. The fact is, the whole childbirth industry encourages women to use (or abuse) the program if they are able to. I eventually came to my ethical senses and started to politely explain that I did not need the program with my last two children. The doctor or nurse would get pushy, sometimes downright rude, and insist that I see if I qualify anyways.

2. AAI 07

Comment #83083 by Juleofdenial on October 28, 2007 at 10:14 pm

if i were to get ill tomorrow i would not be faced with crippling health care costs. i know in the US you have the option for health insurance but there are many many people for who this isn't a real option- the people who genuinely can't afford it or are not eligible for it.

Exactly. What upsets me is that so far everyone has discussed adults and whether or not they deserve health insurance or should have to pay their own way. The real crisis right now is that millions of CHILDREN have been denied health care because the President cares more about being able to pay for the war. While I agree that able-bodied adults should take responibility for themselves when they can, (I practice what I preach. I pay $182 every month for emergency health insurance. That means only accidents or emergency care is covered. I can't afford insurance that pays for regular doctor visits.) however, CHILDREN cannot "pay their own way" and thus deserve all the help that they can get. I am horrified by the double veto of Bush regarding health care for children. While I am hesitant to label anyone or anything "evil," to me, denying millions of children health care is evil. The so called Christian leaders in government today horrify me. Their Christianity is outright bull.

I see nothing dishonest about the Dems making faith statements.

Libertarian, Democrat, Independent...I used to think anything was better than these fundamental Republicans. But now even that may no longer be true, because the way Hillary Clinton and other candidates have "embraced" faith is quite scary to me. I find it terribly sad when even the Democrats feel the need to include faith in politics. I don't know which is worse, the idea that they are making false faith claims to get votes or that they are fundamental Christian Democrats.

3. AAI 07

Comment #83079 by Juleofdenial on October 28, 2007 at 9:45 pm

I don't believe that Christians have a monopoly on compassion, empathy and forgiveness

Monopoly? Show me a compassionate, empathetic, forgiving Christian and I'll show you an invisible pink unicorn.

4. AAI 07

Comment #83076 by Juleofdenial on October 28, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Is your health insurance more important than that $300 iPod you bought?

How about that x-box - was that more important than getting your ass to the dentist?

Is grabbing that $5 latte everyday more useful than your yearly physical?

Don't whine to me about choices when we all make them - we all prioritize those choices

My exhusband worked at a Rent-a-center for a few years. Every Friday there were dozens of people that paid for whatever they were renting (computers, tv sets, furniture) using the money from their welfare checks.

Also before food stamps went to the "credit card" system and were using actual stamps, I knew of people who would buy only a pack of gum. The store had to give them money as change and they would use the money for other things.

5. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82296 by Juleofdenial on October 26, 2007 at 2:41 am

In my experience the moderates are harmless until confronted with atheism...then their true colors of being fundamental extremists come out.

6. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82290 by Juleofdenial on October 26, 2007 at 2:24 am

But why would these results surprise you? It's easy to see that all other things being equivalent a religious person has one more reason to act ethically than a nonreligious person, namely the belief in the afterlife in which one's actions in this life have relevance.

Bribery and extortion are good things? Because that is how Christianity gets people to behave. A person acting ethically because of the belief in an afterlife is acting out of purely selfish means! How can I be rewarded and not punished for my behavior?

The athiest, on the other hand, is ethical purely for the sake of being ethical. No carrot on the end of a stick needed. It is completely and utterly unselfish.

7. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82281 by Juleofdenial on October 26, 2007 at 1:49 am

Don't you worry, I can take the heat, alright. I may die of boredom, though, if I have to explain that lacking a belief in God is not likely to lead to me committing genocide, once more. Or explaining that we did not evolve from apes, and that there is probably more evidence for evolution taking place than all other scientific theories put together.

But what others don't seem to see is that changing your name isn't going to change that! You are delusional if you think changing your name will make them be more understanding and less hateful. You are the enemy no matter what your name is. You are applying a band aid solution to a problem that has been around for hundreds of years! Have blacks eradicated racism by changing their name to African American? No!

8. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82275 by Juleofdenial on October 26, 2007 at 1:36 am

On the subject of dropping the name atheist, I quite frankly think that anyone wanting to do that is letting THEM win.

Do you want to be accepted for who you are and what you don't believe, or do you want to conform so that those that oppose you will accept you? How about those that drop the term athiests adopt the new name "conformists?" Because that is exactly what you are doing.

Why not, instead have a movement similar to gay pride and pagan pride? Start atheist pride!

9. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82272 by Juleofdenial on October 26, 2007 at 1:21 am

What does it take to be happy? Well, one aspect is that you must BE.

Be who you are, do what needs to be done, and you will will have what you want to have.

Being is only the start of it. A rock can "be." Nor is mediatiation the be all and end all. I'm afraid you have the purpose of meditation backwards. A person meditates so that one can find happiness in everyday life, not in the mediation itself. It sounds to me that you are using mediation as an escape tool, not as one to help you be more calm and effective in dealing with life. After enlightment, carry water and chop wood.