THOTH

Thats BS. How can one say that Athesim is a religion - it has no rituals, no common elements, no heirchy or structure, no spiritual element, no authority figures, no common explanation for how and what are the things around us...etc etc. Its not like any two Atheists can or will agreee on any of this - so how can it be a religion? Please consider: http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html Religion originates in an attempt to represent and order beliefs, feelings, imaginings and actions that arise in response to direct experience of the sacred and the spiritual. As this attempt expands in its formulation and elaboration, it becomes a process that creates meaning for itself on a sustaining basis, in terms of both its originating experiences and its own continuing responses. etc (the wholepresentation is quite good) Atheism is only a rejection of what other people claim in terms of religion and the devine - and the assertion that in fact there is no proof or reason to beleive whatsoever in such...after that its all open - there are no doctrines or prescribed beliefs - so no - Atheism is in no way a religion of any sort. Additionaly - many Anthropologists conclude that religion must have a supernatural element (like Fadiism): Such as i found in this definition - Religion is "a behaviour, process or structure whose orientation is at least partially supernatural." And speaking of Mencken - in another thread here on Hye (a true American genius if there ever was one!) from the second page of H.L. Mencken, _Treatise on the Gods_ (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930, revised 1946): Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its professors may allege to the contrary. Whether it happens to show itself in the artless mumbo-jumbo of a Winnebago Indian or in the elaborately refined and metaphysical rites of a a Christian archbishop, its single function is to give man access to the powers which seem to control his destiny, and its single purpose is to induce those powers to be friendly to him. That function and that purpose are common to all relgioins, ancient or modern, savage or civilized, and they are the only common characters that all of them show. Nothing else is essential. Religion may repudiate every sort of moral aim or idea, and still be authentically religion. It may confine itself to the welfare of the votary in this world, rejecting immortality and even the concept of the soul, and yet hold its character and its name. It may reduce its practices to hollow formulae, without immediate logical content. It may imagine its gods as beings of unknown and unknowable nature and faculties, or it may imagine them as creatures but slightly different from men. It may identify them with animals, natural forces, or innanimate objects, on the earth or in the vague skies. It may credit them with virtues which, in man, would be inconceivable, or lay to them vices and weaknesses which, in man, would be unendurable. It may think of them as numerous or solitary, as mortal or immortal. It may elect them and depose them, choose between them, rotate them in office, arrange them in hierarchies, punish them, kill them. But so long as it believes them to be able at their will to condition the fate of man, whether on this earth or elsewhere, and so long as it professes to be capable of influencing that will to his benefit, that long it is religion, and as truly deserving of the name as the most highly wrought theological system ever heard of. Mencken also noted (in the end of the introduction to the revised edition (1946)(some sentences omitted)): It would be folly to underestimate the power of religion upon the unhappy Simidiiae known as man, even today. That its grip is lessening I show by plain evidence, but this lessening is to be seen only in relatively small minorities, admittedly damned. The great masses of people still follow theologicans as they follow politicians, and seem doomed to be bamboozled and squeezed by both for many long ages to come. Having been born without any capacity for moral indignation, I can only record this fact in a scientific spirit, letting others, if they choose, deplore it--or rejoice in it. Religion itself is commonly thought of as a moral engine, but I am convinced that that aspect of it is largely fortuitous. (I have dealt with the subject of ethics at some length in a companion volume called "Treatise on the Gods".) Men do not derive their ethical ideas from the powers and principalities of the air; they simply credit those powers with whatever laws they evolve out of their own wisdom or lack of it. Religion, in its essence, is thus not a scheme of conduct, but a theory of causes. What brought it into the world in the remote days I try to conjure up by hypotheses in Section I were man's eternal wonder and his eternal hope. It represents one of his boldest efforts to penetrate the unknowable, to put down the intolerable, to refashion the universe nearer to his heart's desire. My belief is that it is a poor device to that end--that when it is examined objectively it testifies to his lack of sense quite as much as to his high striving. But that belief is just a belief. The immense interest and importance of the thing itself remains.

Warming May Threaten 37% of Species by 2050 By Guy Gugliotta Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 8, 2004; Page A01 In the first study of its kind, researchers in a range of habitats including northern Britain, the wet tropics of northeastern Australia and the Mexican desert said yesterday that global warming at currently predicted rates will drive 15 to 37 percent of living species toward extinction by mid-century. Dismayed by their results, the researchers called for "rapid implementation of technologies" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and warned that the scale of extinctions could climb much higher because of mutually reinforcing interactions between climate change and habitat destruction caused by agriculture, invasive species and other factors. "The midrange estimate is that 24 percent of plants and animals will be committed to extinction by 2050," said ecologist Chris Thomas of Britain's University of Leeds. "We're not talking about the occasional extinction -- we're talking about 1.25 million species. It's a massive number." The study marks the first time scientists have produced a global analysis with concrete estimates of the effect of climate change on habitat. Previous work -- much of it by the same researchers -- focused on smaller regions or limited numbers of species. Thomas led a 19-member international team that surveyed habitat decline for 1,103 plant and animal species in five regions: Europe; Queensland, Australia; Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert; the Brazilian Amazon; and the Cape Floristic Region at South Africa's southern tip. The study is being published today in the journal Nature. The five regions encompass 20 percent of Earth's surface and "include a fair range of terrestrial environments," Thomas said in a telephone interview from Leeds. "Obviously, it would be valuable to expand the scope, but there's no reason to think that doing so would change our results tremendously." Researchers said the wide geographical scope also overcame outside factors that might affect a single region only. "A prolonged drought might cause one instance of a dieback" but be offset by changes elsewhere, acknowledged climate change biologist Lee Hannah, who worked in South Africa. "When you see the broader context, the regional blips drop out." Although there is little dispute that Earth's temperature is rising, debate over the reasons and speed of change remains contentious. Still, most scientists accept that much of the warming is caused by the cumulative effects of human-produced emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" -- from power plants and other industries -- that trap and hold heat in the atmosphere. One skeptic, William O'Keefe, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative science policy organization, criticized the Nature study, saying that the research "ignored species' ability to adapt to higher temperatures" and assumed that technologies will not arise to reduce emissions. Climatologists have developed models that describe the temperature changes that specific regions have undergone over periods of as long as 30,000 years. The Nature study used U.N. projections that world average temperatures will rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The trick for the study, Thomas said, was to marry the maps of projected climate change in particular regions with maps describing the habitat -- especially the climate needs -- of plants and animals in the same area. For this, "we needed to get the people together who knew where the species lived," Thomas said. These were the conservationists on the research team -- ecological experts who study extinctions by looking at traditional culprits: destruction of habitat through agriculture, industry or human settlement; invasive species shoving aside native plants and animals; and hunting and extermination of pests. "Obviously, plants and animals depend on climate for survival, but we figured that if we protect them in place, they would be all right," Hannah said in a telephone interview from his home in California. "But now we realize that we have to take care of them not only where they are now, but where they might have to go." The team calculated the effects of climate change on extinctions by using what ecologists J. Alan Pounds and Robert Puschendorf, in an article accompanying the study, called "one of ecology's few ironclad laws" -- that shrinking habitat supports fewer species. The study considered a range of possibilities based on the ability of each species to move to a more congenial habitat to escape warming. If all species were able to move, or "disperse," the study said, only 15 percent would be irrevocably headed for extinction by 2050. If no species were able to disperse, the extinction rate could rise as high as 37 percent. "Reality, of course, will fall somewhere in between," Thomas said. As an example, he cited Britain's comma butterfly, a robust flier that hopscotched 160 miles north from 1982 to 1997, feeding all the way -- in its caterpillar phase -- on stinging nettles. By contrast, the silver-studded blue butterfly needs to move north but cannot, because it needs lowland heath to survive, and the gaps between patches of habitat are too large for this weak-winged flier to overcome. As a result, "it has continued to decline," Thomas said. Pounds, speaking by telephone from his office in Costa Rica's Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, called the study's results "ironclad" and "if anything, too conservative." The adverse effects of natural roadblocks would be compounded by "interaction with other changes" such as agriculture, human settlement or invasive species, he said. "There are different ways you can lose area," Pounds said. "One is to have the habitat directly destroyed. Climate change does the same thing."

Glad you have expressed to us your high opinon of women....(no need to) wonder what they would say about you...LOL And as usual you miss the point entirely of this book (which I think is on the mark in many cases - or seems to be)...and instead you go off on an unlrealated diatribe of your own making...so typical...

So not all men are good or nice...what else is new...and if you think that a finger can be pointed just at Atheists (and I don't include communists in this really - as they have their religion - Communisim - and it is not at allthe same as Materialism - even if it has its roots there) - well you have another thing comming - as the greatest atrocities in the histly of man have been commited by those in the name of religion. Even Hitler claimed himself a devout believer and tied his (ugly) beliefs to religon. To say that one requred God for a moral foundation is just false - period. As man has created God and all gods - so obviously we are fully capable of creating morality - whatever we tie it to...

Absolutly I agree. And i think it is a great film (though not perfect...but heh). Was I dispointed on a certian level - maybe, thinking, like you and other Armenians that this could be a film presenting the history/totality of the genocide to the world - and it wasn't quite that at all...but in the end i think it si something more. And all those who are getting worked up - that aspects of the movie are not true to fact - or exactly as it was written in the book etc - well they too miss the point - one of the main points Egoyan was making in the movie - and not even subtly - and that is that a movie will never be fact - can never be - by its very nature it is a fiction. What is important is the emotion and the lessons - and yes to be accurate in the totality - its not like nayhting was presented that is basically wrong - as a movie it is illustrative - its nit a documentary either - which is what perhaps Armenians want - the ultimate documentary on the genocide - and I hope such a thing doe sget made too. Also -- the Shindler's list for the Armenian Genocide - well the story is there - and it concerns the Armenian employees (and convict/slaves etc0 of the Bagdad railway - that the german's went to great lengths to proptect - but - unlike the Shindler expereincve - it largely came to naught - as they aquiesed - under force - to the Turksih demands to turn over all the Armenians. And its from this experience where I can recall reading an account - froma German lady/employee of the railroad - where she witnessed Armenain women being subjectd to various depravities and wishing her eyes torn out etc...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2004Jan7.html LOL

Yes...lock and load as it were.. ...now that certainly seems to be a mans thing/perspecive ....and certainly very glad that you approve! ...and i have to say - that in itself is quite a turn-on!!!!!

Nice Anoushik - I like it..and thanks for the link...

DAVO - you sound like a nice person and I know that you don't mean harm etc and I understand what you are tyring to say concerning Armenian identity - still I have to say - you are stuck in time...and unfortunatly - for you - the world and our societies are not standing still - and basically cannot. I know that this is difficult for you - and many - to cope with - but unfortunalty it just is. Now I have nothing against trying to maintain moral values or aspects of our culture that are unique and worthwhile - but really - I think you must examine these values of yorus and really thik a bit. I've known many homosexuals - and they are as moral and as normal as anyone else - and are entitled to be allowed to live as anyone else and to do what they wish - as long as others are not harmed. And this may even include raising a family - as I have seen such - and in fact some gays make great parents. So open up your eyes a bit - and try to be just a bit more tolerant of others. If you aren;t - well I fear that you will just give yourself ulcers or such. Oh and regarding drugs...Do you drink cofee or tea? Do you drink beer or wine? Do you smoke? etc ..all of these are driugs (or have components that can be classified as such)...even taking asprin - well that is a drug - so yes - adults take drugs for a varaiety of reasons. Is it wrong to take drugs to make you feel better - or to enjoy some nice effects etc? I can't see how it is per se...at least with wrong being equated to criminal behavior. Is it not a good idea perhaps..perhaps..most all drugs have either unwanted/not so good side effects...and/or are addictive or otherwise harmful...may not be good to be "on" if you have to be resposible in any way etc etc - so yes there are always issues and considerations. But I myself enjoy a glass of wine or a beer now and again...I enjoy the partaking and the effect. And while yes - there may be harmful elements involved with alchohol consumption - I feel the benefits are worthwhile anddesirable on average. In fact there is much to be said - concerning direct health benefits - of red wine for instance (and I have in fact had a doctor perscribe me wine for post-operative pain relief - as opposed to a narcotic (my idea of course! LOL) - as well as psychological ones - nice to help relax - make it easier to smile and laugh or what have you...etc etc...so again - please refrain from making blanket judgements when in fact there might be a bit more to the issue.

Nice article...and this (increased) use of coal is criminal IMO - an incredible source of pollution (with many negative affects - including tree death). I've witnessed the effects of these plant emmisions in the Appalacian Mountains - where dead trees abound - the cause - all the Nitrous and acidic emmisions form these plants. Additionally i am very familiar with the Mohave Generation Station - as it sits out in the (high) desert - where the skys are (normally) clear and pristine...and when your out there looking at the stars (more then you've even seen)...suddenly there is this high altitude haze - where it shouldn't be...etc etc...not good...when will people learn...???

Nakharar - I don't disagree with you that Ararat is probably not the best film to poresent the Armenian Genocide to Turks - and in fact it is not at all the type of film that you and other Armenias are wishing for - and it certainly has its flaws (most I think recognized by Egoyan - and out of necessity) - but in fact it is a masterful film. I fear that you and others lack the depth of understanding to appreciate it on the very many levels as it was intended. It is an intellectual and artistic movie (also with a tremendous amount of heart)...for a supposedly intellectual and artistic people. I know that the film moves me greatly - and I have also shown it to several non-Armenians who I think pretty much got the point of it - and appreciated it as well - and it certainly caused them to ask some questions - and isn't that what we want from such a film? (of course one - though certainly an abberation - concluded that the Turks were right to Genocide the Armenians - [just as the Germans were the Jews] - becuase we didn't fit in...etc LOL - oh well - can't satisfy everyone - eh? As for Turkey's decision...well I'm not at all surprised...I mean their rebuttle film is perhaps years away..perhaps we should give them a chance to hang themselves on this one...LOL

Yeah Acel...if you had to deal with that issue in the second bit...well i think...well...I'd maybe hire a l;awyer...LOL...i was thinking hitman for #1.... :wolfwood:

Agreed. None of like being told what to do - how to think - who to be with - all of that...so where do we get off telling all of this to others. Live and let live...life is too short. And DAVO - sorry dude - but there is no going back. Our world and society are changing at a faster pace then ever before - and thats just the way of it. It would be nice if some folks had more foresight and might be able to guide along (to try t prevent or minimize real big problems) or even predict some of this change - but I guess its not the nature of things. So along with all of this - family and human relationships will change (not that we haven't had gay folks and same sex liasons etc throughout history - not really all that new)...but you can't live in the past...

Sorry UKGIRL...she's ours!!!! LOL

Yes we all need rules and religion to comfort and protect us...children that we all are...LOL

OK Domino - I stand corrected. Thank you. All hail the matrrix! lol

No actually Armat is entirely correct. These are primordial bacterial beings that by all rights (considering what we normally accept as acceptable parameters of life) shouldn't be able to exsit at all.

!

Shes waht you call....a natural talent...LOL Speaking of natural DAVO - now I ask you? LOL

Well yes...regarding Adam & Steve.. http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/genesis/genesis.htm also of interest - http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/relations...lationships.htm And regarding your second point - just what is natural? Do you eat prcessed foods? Refined suger? Do you eat oatmeal with ketchup? (don't laugh - a French friend of mine does...and I'd say its not nbatural - not in the least...but is it wrong? i mean should it be against the law?) http://www.gayparentmag.com/ http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc.html

I'd make a comment...but I wouldn't want to offend DAVO with any reference to any kind of homosexual act...

I think that no one should be named DAVO. I really dislike that name - in fact it repulses me. Kill them all! etc (do you see my point here? What business is it of mine what your name is...or what you eat for breakfast, who your friends are, if you like to drink or not, if you masurbate alone or with friends...again - what business is it of mine?) Again see above. Many peple are married that do not have children. They are married because they love each other - and do have a family - in themselves. Gays are no different. And there is always adoption. I have had several friends that have been unable to have children - some have adopted and have wonderful families/children etc...but are you saying that those who chose not to adopt should be divorced? etc I don't know - you tell me...seems like much is pretty much the same I imagine..or at least ballpark? I don't know - are gays fdoing something that is (directly) threatening you? I don't understand.....

Yes - and it all seems pretty damn unessicary - as m,ost of these gusy are pretty well off and set already. But really this is only one of a number of similar economic packages they have (quietly) passed for themselve over the years. If you are at all familiar witrh Living Trusts - these were initially developed for Congressional types - to skirt inheritancve taxes, probate and such...(we have so lost our true roots in this country)...anyway - Its why I am in favor of a consititutional amendment (my own) called the incumbant accountability act. Where all elected officials are free to run for extended terms - on one condition - they must submit to a specail election (after each term) from their consitituants where - if the vote goes against - they are automatically beheaded!

Davo - No one is perfect. And yes if someone contributes the rest should be greateful regardless. I'm greatful for prostitutes as I think they serve a good purpose - (though am agianst under aged and abused etc) - though I've never ad need of one myself. And see you aree making a judgement call - that categorically being gay is a bad thing. I don't see it. What is your real proof. How is being gay harmful? How does it hurt anyone? (and I'm not talking deviants or predators etc - as these exist in all gender types or what have you...)

Hm - just like in Nazi Germany eh? Unfourtunatly - for you - out of sight (by necessity) does not mean that it ain't happening. And history and a look at allsocieties shows us that a certain percentage of folks are going to be gay (or some such). This is just fact. And in fact gays have made great contributions to the culture and advancement of our world - we have had many very creative and industrious gays at various times and places in our world - and perhaps you shouldbe thankful for that. But the bottom line is - why should you care. Its not you - do your own thing your way - and be thankful that no one is telling you how to live your life. Let others do the same. It is a non-issue IMO. Just because someone may or may not want to play around with someone of their own sex, or perhaps not at all, or whatever - it is not what should be considered what a person IS. A person is a person - all of the other stuff is their own business - and is inconsequential. I mean really - is every - or even most situations that you are in on a daily basis concenring sex? I thought not.