Comments on: Fred Thompson's Non-Campaign Rolls On

Actor And Former Senator Explains Why He Could Be President, But Won't Commit To Running

[randalds]

I don't think you're being obnoxious at all. Certainly not like many religious people here have been anyway. Perhaps I'm not explaining my self correctly or clearly enough. This forum is difficult to do that in. There are different definitions of the word believe and yes I believe in science, but it's not the same type of belief (faith) as one has in a religion. I don't believe in it just because a book tells me. I believe in it the same way I believe that the earth is round, that it's the third planet from the Sun, that the Sun is just an average star in an average galaxy in the universe. It's the same way that I believe that water is chemically H2O or that I believe in the existence of atoms. I believe these things (and others) because they've been studied by thousands of people who have presented physical evidence to show that they are real. People who have no reason to re-enforce each others conclusions or work and who in fact would love to jealousy disprove them some times. No I don't go collect the evidence myself, but the difference is that I could if I wanted to. I could do the experiments necessary to prove that science is right. To me that's what belief is, as opposed to faith.

[bhmortim]

no worries on spelling. :) I make woorse misstaks

[bhmortim]

Ok,

I don't want to be obnoxious here, but you said the following...

"Personally I don't do scientific experiments in that field myself. However people I am friends with and whose opinions I trust do and I believe them when they tell me. Also there are particuklar scientists whose credibility I trust above others and they have written on the subject for decades."

To me, this is an article of faith. You have a strong belief in this theory based on the testimony of those you trust. This strong belief leads you to action and to live your life a certain way. To me this smacks of religion. I don't know about you, but I dont want anyone using the state to force their religion on me.

[randalds]

particuklar?

Hmmm...I need to proof these better.... or git a batter speel chequer...

[randalds]

Please describe the experiment you use to prove the theory of global warming?

Just saying all scientists agree does not make a theory true as scientific fact. Scientific consensus at one time was that the earth was flat. Scientific consensus is really an antithesis to the scientific method.

Posted by bhmortim at 01:42 AM : May 06, 2007

Personally I don't do scientific experiments in that field myself. However people I am friends with and whose opinions I trust do and I believe them when they tell me. Also there are particuklar scientists whose credibility I trust above others and they have written on the subject for decades.

You are correct in one sense about scientific consensus though, science is never completely finished with a particular theory or law. All science is constantly being tested and attempts are constantly being made to disprove or change what is accepted science. In defense of science however I would say that there really was never any real scientific consensus that the earth was flat. That was just a popular myth centuries ago. Scientists in most civilizations came to the conclusion that the earth was round thousands of years before the birth of Christ and we've made considerable advances since then.

[bhmortim]

Please describe the experiment you use to prove the theory of global warming?

Are you not asking others to completely change their life based on your belief in this theory? Tax gas more, stop building power plants, use curly light bulbs, let it mellow if it's yellow, etc. I would say that the enviro religion is attempting to use state power to force their beliefs on me when it is far from proven.

Just saying all scientists agree does not make a theory true as scientific fact. Scientific consensus at one time was that the earth was flat. Scientific consensus is really an antithesis to the scientific method.

[randalds]

Please remind me. What is my view of creation again?

and last I heard the science was still out on global warming and what the cause is. It is after all a theory.

I'm sorry. I didn%u2019t mean to question a tenant of your personal faith.

Posted by bhmortim at 01:28 AM : May 06, 2007

Well perhaps I misunderstood, but from the tone of your question I believed you are a person who believes in creationism. If not then I apologize and change my answer to include only others who believe that way.

No there is really no dispute left the global warming is real, but only that some scientists still hold that it is natural and not necessarily human caused. That said more and more of them seem to be moving over to the human caused side all of the time. And again, global warming is not a matter of faith, it is science.

[bhmortim]

Please remind me. What is my view of creation again?

and last I heard the science was still out on global warming and what the cause is. It is after all a theory.

I'm sorry. I didn%u2019t mean to question a tenant of your personal faith.

[randalds]

These are both religious issues. Both require faith in a set of tenants, and ritual action in response.

Posted by bhmortim at 01:16 AM : May 06, 2007

Nope. One is accepted science and the other is not. An Inconvenient Truth is completely scientifically based (as is evolution), whereas creationism is not. Global warming and evolution can both be shown to be true by repeatable scientific experiments and neither require any faith at all any more then the multiplication tables or the structure of the Solar System. Creationism on the other hand is completely faith based and has no credible science behind it, for a very good reason, it's a myth. It is not science. Besides if you want your children to be taught creationism as explained by your faith then you're free to send them to your church school. However if we allowed your version of creation to be taught in public schools, then we'd have to allow the creation stories that are told from all other religions too (and there are thousands of them) and there'd be no time to teach anything else.

[bhmortim]

well...

My kids watched what is in my opinion a VERY religious movie in school. They saw an inconvenient truth. They saw this in Science class, Language arts, and in health.

hmmmmm. How different is pushing this theory on state bucks from teaching that some people believe the earth was created?

These are both religious issues. Both require faith in a set of tenants, and ritual action in response.

[randalds]

Shouldn%u2019t folks that believe gay marriage is wrong be allowed to express their position? Shouldn%u2019t those who believe that God created the heavens and the earth be allowed to share that position?

You don%u2019t have to listen to or believe anything you dont want to. But to say that an individual or an institution does not have the right to express a position is un-American.

Posted by bhmortim at 01:06 AM : May 06, 2007

Of course, in it's proper place and time. Those places do not however include public schools. Also certainly people have a right to say they are opposed to something like ga*y marriage based on their religious feelings and values, but that does not give them the right to try to stop others who do not believe in those same religious feeling from entering into ga*y marriage. It's none of their business if ga*y people want to get married, so yes speak out against it, but free speech does not stretch to imposing your beliefs on others by trying to stop them from freely living their lives according to what they believe. The same goes with creationism. If you want to believe it, fine, but it is not science and should only be taught in philosophy classes, not biology and archeology.

[bhmortim]

Randal,

Where do you draw that line? Is it offensive to you just to hear the beliefs of others? My understanding of America is that we are a pluralistic society. We are all free to speak. (please see amendment number 1) You are also free to not listen. There are many many voices in our society that I don%u2019t listen to or give any respect to. I don%u2019t have to. But they are free to speak whatever garbage they want to.

Shouldn%u2019t folks that believe gay marriage is wrong be allowed to express their position? Shouldn%u2019t those who believe that God created the heavens and the earth be allowed to share that position?

You don%u2019t have to listen to or believe anything you dont want to. But to say that an individual or an institution does not have the right to express a position is un-American.

[randalds]

I appreciate your change of tone. Bashing each other gets us nowhere. I could call you a tofu-eating, tree-hugging, hippy who doesn't wear deodorant; but would I be right? That's only a small fraction of liberals, like the Christian right is to the conservatives. We all fall somewhere in between, and we should respect that. I feel that I am just as correct in my positions as you feel about yours. Now, let's compromise and meet in the middle. Welcome to what America should be.

Posted by buhk at 12:56 AM : May 06, 2007

And I can appreciate that sometimes my tone does get a bit....hostile...but that is mostly because I'm more used to dealing with the more right wing type Christian on here. I mistook you for one and I'm not above apologizing for the offense. Actually as for your descrpition of me it's pretty close, except I hate tofu! lol!

The sad thing is that RandalDS is only echoing the perceptions of the majority of leftwing social progressives that now control the Dems.

[buhk]

I appreciate your change of tone. Bashing each other gets us nowhere. I could call you a tofu-eating, tree-hugging, hippy who doesn't wear deodorant; but would I be right? That's only a small fraction of liberals, like the Christian right is to the conservatives. We all fall somewhere in between, and we should respect that. I feel that I am just as correct in my positions as you feel about yours. Now, let's compromise and meet in the middle. Welcome to what America should be.

[randalds]

So Randal,

Should I be excluded from participation in government because I am religious? How is that not religious discrimination?

Posted by bhmortim at 12:46 AM : May 06, 2007

Certainly not. I understand that most people in this country follow one sort of religion or another and again, I have no problem with that. Perhaps I can be a bit clearer here though. What I object to is when people of one religion or another seek to impose their religious values on others who don't hold the same beliefs or to teach their religious tenets as truth in the public schools. People on the extreme right of Christianity, such as many of Bush's most loyal supporters, try to do things like oppose ga*y marriage or teach creationism in the schools. That is attempting to impose their religion on others who don't follow their religion or, like me, who are atheists. That is un-American.

[bhmortim]

If there was only a 'zoloft' or 'lexipro' that could be subscribed to cure the less than 50% of this nation suffering from this disease. G

[smarty0357]

Another right-wing Christian just signed in. Remember my friend liberalizm is a mental disorder.

[bhmortim]

So Randal,

Should I be excluded from participation in government because I am religious? How is that not religious discrimination?

I think you believe you are a harbinger of liberty, but if your beliefs were put into policy it would be quite discriminatory.

Oh yeah.. I get it. Freedom for all... well... except Christians. We can exclude Christians.

[jsa16]

I would vote for Mr. Thompson in a heartbeat! He is exactly the person we need to unify the Republican party.

None of the other candidates can hold a candle to Thomspon in my opinion.