Forum Replies Created
Ok. I’ve watched the crash course, and am a very open-minded kind of person.
I really liked it, and have always wanted to build my own "log-home" probably from a kit, since it’s the easiest thing to do. I intend to be as self-sufficient as possible in this Log Home, like solar/wind power, hot water, in ground heat-exchangers, well, etc…
Now where I have my issues, isn’t necessarily with me, but rather with my wife. She gets eyes glazed over whenever I talk about the real possibiltiy of economic collapse and she won’t even watch more than a little of the crash course, or even other movies/documentaries that are similar in nature.
We also have very different opinions on storage of food, whether or not we should stockpile anything etc..
The issue is I know how I feel, and if it were totally up to me, I’d have taken action already to start doing these sort of things. We have 3 kids, 2 in college, we live in a suburban neighborhood, and she won’t even consider the log home and land purchase until the third kid (11 right now) is out of school due to not wanting his social structure being impacted (she is a high school teacher).
I really don’t know how to convince her to do something that she feels is just being overly critical and more of a militant approach to preparing for possible problems.
How would you handle this?
Both my mother and my husband are this way, but I see their eyes opening up. Opening their eyes still doesn’t mean they are open-minded about this issue, and I think you should be careful about how you approach the subject with her. Ask her what her opinions are and listen to what does and does not concern her. You might learn a little from her as well. Then only after she starts talking about it you might want to argue (very passively) about the issue and give her correct information about what she is speculating about. You don’t need to give her information about what she doesn’t care about, though, because… she doesn’t care. The biggest hurdle is getting them to care.
Considering the collapse of their civilization, I’d say that they weren’t the smartest tool in the shed… even though, from what I’ve been told, they were pretty "advanced" for their time (technologically and astronomically speaking).
Breaking the Spell– Speaking against religion is taboo
Former Archbishop of Canterbury: atheists use 9/11 as excuse to attack all religions
Atheists have used the terrorist outrages of September 11 as an excuse to attack all religions, according to the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:02PM GMT 12 Jan 2009
Lord Carey said the destruction of the World Trade Center by Muslim fanatics marked the start of a new war waged by “aggressive and strident” writers such as Professor Richard Dawkins.
He claimed the “unpleasant and reactionary” tone of those who dismiss all faiths has widened the divide between religion and science, creating a “dialogue of the deaf”.
However Lord Carey, who was the most senior cleric in the Church of England between 1991 and 2002, conceded that atheists are right to criticise the “pseudo-science” of creationism.
He claimed Christians are playing into the hands of anti-religion campaigners by defending Biblical accounts of the earth’s history, and praised Charles Darwin, the pioneer of evolutionary theory, as “one of the greatest human beings of all time”.
His comments come as Britain’s first atheist advertising campaign launches, with 800 buses taking to the streets emblazoned with posters declaring: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
In a speech to the University of Gloucestershire, Lord Carey said: “We now live in such a divided and dangerous world, that the most urgent challenge facing us all is to build bridges of understanding and hope. The contribution [of religions] is being hindered, not only by deep misunderstanding between the faiths but, more worryingly, by a troubling polarisation between two intellectual worlds – faith and secularism, or faith and science.
“September 11th 2001, is a key date in modern history. It is usually taken to represent a watershed between West and Islam, and this is true. But it is also the date that symbolises a growing split between faith and reason, illustrated in the hostility to all religions by Richard Dawkins and others.”
He went on: “The attacks on the World Trade Centre, Pentagon and the White House woke us all up to a resurgent and militant Islam which remains an active presence seven years on. For some writers, such events are illustrations of the evils of religion – all religions.
“I have no doubt that one can trace a direct link from 9/11 to the aggressive and strident tones of such writers as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and others. The result is a widening gap between religion and science; an unwillingness to engage, concluding in a dialogue of the deaf.”
However the former Archbishop admitted that he could “sympathise to a degree” with the atheists’ attacks on creationism – which teaches that the world was made by God in days just a few thousand years ago – and intelligent design, which holds that the universe is so complex it must have been made by someone.
He said: “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth.
“The argument for intelligent design may have some appeal for many Christians but is ultimately a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.”
Lord Carey said it was not true that Darwin’s theories about how life on earth evolved had created a permanent divide between science and religion.
“Many of us accept it, and speaking personally, I have always believed it as a well established explanation of the world we live in,” he said.
He concluded that the devout should engage in a more “positive, respectful and critical” way towards science, but also that atheists must concede that religion can benefit believers and society in general.
Referring to the atheist bus campaign, Lord Carey said: “The inference is that all religions are bad for human flourishing; they are diseased and atrophied vestiges of human life.
“A reasonable and careful conversation is needed for us to overcome the infantile and trivial way matters of ethical behaviour are being discussed.”
The bus campaign raised £140,000 to place adverts on 800 buses around Britain and 1,000 posters on Tube trains.
Following its success, the BBC agreed to broadcast a non-religious version of Thought for the Day for the first time.
Heads of the corporation had previously refused to allow unbelievers to speak in the prestigious “God slot” on Radio 4’s Today programme, restricting contributors to figures from established faiths.
But its founder was given the opportunity to talk on a special version of Thought for the Day, on another show on the radio channel.
I failed it.
This video does not require anyone to debate, on this forum, as he (Sam) is more than well versed in the subject and has covered almost every topic within this argument.
We may or may not live through another "mini" ice age. That depends upon how prepared we are. I say that is not likely.
We personally or our civalization may not, But man will.
How prepared were the cavemen for an iceage ?
did you read my previous post when I said:" with little to no resources"?
[quote=Mike Pilat]But if I am not only logically, but also practically incorrect, then I am going to expect to see these devices all over the news really soon as a huge scientific breakthrough. [/quote]
Hopefully, but I have not idea.
So what other jobs would you like to see created to help spur the growth in our country that we’ve all grown so accustomed to?
1. We should not create any jobs while we, the country, has no $$.
2. If we, the gov. has a surplus, I still don’t think they should be creating jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. If they want to "create jobs" secondary to "let’s find more efficiency" then I’m all for it.
I still think that #1 has to happen before #2 can even be considered. We, the gov., should not be talking about "creating jobs" right now. I don’t think it’s the government’s job to create jobs anyway (other than within parliment).
Sorry… just my two cents.
if this was the biggest breakthrough, it would be all over the place now.
This is not necessarily true…. That is, this is a logical fallacy.