iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

breadloaf76's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
huffingtonpost entry

40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism

Commented Dec 20, 2010 at 20:31:11 in Religion

“Have you not read the New Testament? You might disagree or disavow it, but it's clearly compelling and intelligent.”
Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Commented Dec 13, 2010 at 13:44:55 in Politics

“that's crazy! What could be unconstitutional about forcing Americans to buy a product from a private company simply because they exist?”
Children Taunted In Iraq: U.S. Soldier Under Investigation (VIDEO)

Children Taunted In Iraq: U.S. Soldier Under Investigation (VIDEO)

Commented May 25, 2010 at 17:10:45 in World

“That's what happens when you train soldiers to kill and then task them with sensitivity.”
Salt-N-Pepa's 'Shoop': A Thorough Breakdown Of Its Absurdity (PHOTOS)

Salt-N-Pepa's 'Shoop': A Thorough Breakdown Of Its Absurdity (PHOTOS)

Commented May 24, 2010 at 03:33:05 in Comedy

“Ha! This article is hilarious 15 years ago.”
Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Commented May 21, 2010 at 11:36:25 in Politics

“Then I'll take my business to someone who will take my money.”

Uncle Bill on May 21, 2010 at 19:55:43

“If there is one, and
if you can get there once the roads decay for want of government revenue to repair them or build new ones,
if you can afford the protection money demanded when you leave the territory covered by your policy with the private security contractor who the libertarians replaced government public safety agencies with.
Once you've negotiated your trade with the business, through barter or gold coins (Rand Paul wants to eliminate the Fed who controls the money supply and stabilizes the currency)
you can enjoy your coffee, and pray that it isn't poisoned with pollution or toxins you won't detect through simple observation.
Good luck in your dream world that is red in tooth and claw.”
Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Commented May 21, 2010 at 11:33:23 in Politics

“No, yes, and I have. I am in favor of the Civil Rights Act. But it's true that public and economic pressure would have eventually changed the culture in a more productive way than government imposition.

You know what a "principle" is, right? Paul has a principle of not letting the government tell businesses what to do. That's not a bad reason to refuse support for the Civil Rights Act.”

PanFx on May 21, 2010 at 11:51:55

“You're saying two things -- that you agree with the Civil Rights Act, and that it was unnecessary. This is the contradiction you're being held to, yet there you are, contradicting away.”

capt ayhab on May 21, 2010 at 11:41:46

“Government is placed there by the people to govern, enforce the law[which is by the people and their representatives] and safeguard the interest of public.

Without government the societies fall into chaos and anarchy.”
Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Commented May 21, 2010 at 11:24:45 in Politics

“Yes, I think he would be against this. Most libertarians want as big a space between government and business as possible.”
Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Rand Paul Is 'Kentucky Fried Candidate' Over Civil Rights Comments

Commented May 21, 2010 at 11:21:08 in Politics

“So, honestly, what is he saying? He doesn't believe the Federal Government should be able to mandate who a business may or may not do business with.

Sorry, that doesn't sound very extreme to me.”

Reader2 on May 21, 2010 at 12:09:44

“"Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?" Answer that question, and I'll decide if I care what you think.”

ContraEgoiste on May 21, 2010 at 11:30:32

“Perhaps not to you, but to civilized thinking individuals, it is.”

steel71 on May 21, 2010 at 11:27:13

“Yes, but rational thoughts aren't required, only a pavlov dog response.”

LemonMeringue on May 21, 2010 at 11:26:58

“Like Paul, you haven't thought it through.”

lastwordss on May 21, 2010 at 11:25:08

“wait until the racial minorities become majority and start refusing to serve you that cup of coffee.”

LemonMeringue on May 21, 2010 at 11:24:25

“Were you alive before the Civil Rights Act? Do you know how things were? If not, get a documentary and learn a little.”

dimplesmile7 on May 21, 2010 at 11:23:16

“Just think even if you are a private business, you must go to the government for a business license.”
Jail Has Reduced Allen Stanford To A Depressed, Half-Blind, 'Wreck Of A Man,' Says Lawyer

Jail Has Reduced Allen Stanford To A Depressed, Half-Blind, 'Wreck Of A Man,' Says Lawyer

Commented May 19, 2010 at 14:39:01 in Business

“So the lesson here is that "prison is unpleasant?" Gosh, that's practically torture.”
Sarah Palin: 'We're All Arizonans Now'

Sarah Palin: 'We're All Arizonans Now'

Commented May 16, 2010 at 18:19:33 in Politics

“Dang Arizona. They should open the border and help all who want to come north. Free healthcare, free education, free welfare for all who want to come. America is the land of the free!”

ARTIST50 on May 16, 2010 at 18:26:20

“And by the way, illegals do pay taxes, may pay income tax and never see social security. It's been reported that in the long run, America comes out ahead.
They pay taxes on gas, sales taxes, etc., so don't think they get off without paying anything, it's just wrong.”

ARTIST50 on May 16, 2010 at 18:24:21

“They get free education. It's not that easy to get on Medicaid without papers.”

cabinetmaniac on May 16, 2010 at 18:21:32

“Or maybe Mexico should just take it back.

:-]”
Who Would Jesus Hate?

Who Would Jesus Hate?

Commented Apr 10, 2010 at 01:02:18 in Religion

“Whatever. Try reading the thread.”
Who Would Jesus Hate?

Who Would Jesus Hate?

Commented Apr 10, 2010 at 01:01:31 in Religion

“I'm fine with saying that, but that's not what the conversation was about. The article is about Jesus, not me.”
The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 17:12:39 in Religion

“For the purposes of this conversation, there do exist beliefs which are axiomatic, yes? What makes yours better than mine?”

HUFFNAME on Apr 16, 2010 at 16:18:04

“I'm not proposing any axioms. I'm pointing out the considerable range in the way that the word divine is actually, conventionally used.

If you want to state as axiomatic that "divine" means "toroid, made of dough and fried in grease" that's okay with me. As long you as you don't suggest that it accords with any conventional understanding of the word nor that your conclusion should illuminate a discussion in which people are using the word divine in a conventional way.”
The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 15:55:52 in Religion

“Let me put it like this, people:

Proposition 1:
A religious belief is any belief in something or other as divine.
Proposition 2:
‘Divine’ means having the status of not depending on anything else.

I do believe that science and logic help us understand the world. But science and logic only hold together because there is a God of order.

A materialist believes in science as if a giant explosion created all kinds of logic and order in the universe. That logic is independent - you can't prove it from within.

So I actually have a non-circular view of science - which none of you do.

FURTHERMORE, you are absolutely inconsistent in your materialist worldview. Can anyone provide a reason a materialist should oppose genocide? Not in your worldview you can't. Try again, and you'll fail as badly as you've failed at this exercise.”

HUFFNAME on Apr 9, 2010 at 16:37:52

“"Proposition 2:
‘Divine’ means having the status of not depending on anything else."

Sorry. Quite unworkable.

Many religions attribute divinity to pantheons of gods, some of which gave birth or otherwise gave rise to one another, each one divine irrespective of depending on another god for existence.

Even in monotheistic schemes the word divine is uses to describe grace, mercy, wrath, etc. Does not divine mercy or wrath rely on the exitence of a merciful or wrathful god?

Back to the old drawing board.”
The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 15:51:32 in Religion

“Yours was the best response.

c. It is true that all religions rely on circular reasoning. It is also true that all circular reasoning supports religion. So science is a religion.”
The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 15:47:17 in Religion

“ghost, I'm not a troll”
The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 15:46:35 in Religion

“Just because millions of people agree doesn't mean it's not a religion, you ought to know that.
And because I'm sitting in front of a product of a process doesn't mean that it is irreligious either. I exist, the Bible claims that is enough evidence to believe in God. So how can you prove to me the computer in front of me is the product of science and not religion? You still can't.”

bbailey123 on Apr 9, 2010 at 20:31:24

“Talk about circular logic. The only written evidence of God is the bible and since the bible exists, God exists.”

RuinedSaint on Apr 9, 2010 at 16:03:05

“"Just because millions of people agree doesn't mean it's not a religion, you ought to know that."

If "agreement" is the only thing you gained from my post, then I'd say you have a severe comprehension problem.

"I exist, the Bible claims that is enough evidence to believe in God."

So does every other mythological text.

"So how can you prove to me the computer in front of me is the product of science and not religion?"

It doesn't require faith to believe it's working; it sits right there, in front of you, working.”
Who Would Jesus Hate?

Who Would Jesus Hate?

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 15:43:46 in Religion

“Well, there are lots of things that Jesus never spoke about. He never spoke about bestiality, or child molestation, or how to conduct one's self in warfare. So because he never said anything about it is no argument that he is against or for something.

In John 8, Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." He is making a claim of divinity. (That's why they wanted to stone him). What God was he claiming to be? The God of the Old Testament! He was claiming that the Old Testament, with all its "abominations," were his words.

Certainly you don't suggest that Jesus was not a rabbi, who taught and loved the Hebrew Scriptures. As such, he would have believed everything they said about sexuality. (See my comments just above)

Sins GLTB people have that others don't: In one sense, they have no sins that others don't. Sexual immorality, gender identity, infidelity: these are all sins common to all men, myself included. Lust is adultery, a failure to be properly masculine is a gender identity issue.

But you're asking for something specific and I'll give you an answer:
Gay men and lesbians:sexual activity outside marriage, exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural, including anal sex
Transgendered: gender identity, refusing creational norms, and frequently the same as just above
Bisexual: the same as gay men and lesbians. There would be nothing sinful about a bi male and bi female having married sex.”

USMA01 on Apr 9, 2010 at 17:53:55

“It seems as though you have put quite a bit of research into justifying your personal assessment that,
"Jesus, as a faithful Jew, certainly would have considered homosexual activity "sin.""
With all this affirmation why not cut out the middle man (or in this case Jesus) and say that you believe that homosexuality is a sin?

Have the moral courage to stand up for personal beliefs rather than ride on the coat tails of the bible”

D Kennedy on Apr 9, 2010 at 17:46:29

“That's great and all - but here's a heads up - he also said

'judge not lest ye be judged'

and

'he who is without sin throw the first stone'

To simplify for you - he meant to not judge anyone because we are all sinful creatures - we are all equal in sin.. and no person has a right to judge another person except God.

We all fail this test because humans are judgmental in nature.. it's a difficult thing to conquer.. but the first step is understanding it's not your place to judge people as being stupid, immoral, or any other thing of the sort.

He also said that if a man is sinning and doesn't know it.. don't tell him he is - it would just be another stumbling block in his path.

We all have to point out wrong doing when we see it - if it endangers another person.. or it causes harm in some way.. and so sometimes some types of public judging is appropriate - it's necessary.. but it's on the other hand NOT your place to get on a soapbox and tell us that God doesn't like gay people.. or whatever it is you are trying to accomplish - God would not appreciate that behavior and by the words of Christ judge your own sexual thoughts and life as harshly as you are judging other people.”
Who Would Jesus Hate?

Who Would Jesus Hate?

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 15:31:04 in Religion

“fjg: Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Jesus didn't toss them out, he taught them as they were intended to be understood. The problem with the Pharisees wasn't that they were obeying Mosaic law, it was that they were NOT obeying it.
If you read Luke 10:25-28, you'll see that the 2 commandments were a SUMMARY of the Law of Moses, not a replacement.

So when Jesus says, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Mt 15:19) the words "sexual immorality" have a particular context - the Old Testament!

You might not agree with Jesus; I'm only arguing for what he meant.”
Who Would Jesus Hate?

Who Would Jesus Hate?

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 14:24:05 in Religion

“Jesus FORGAVE people. Jesus would certainly hang out with and love GLTB people, but he would also forgive them. You know, of their sins. You can't invoke Jesus without invoking sin. Jesus, as a faithful Jew, certainly would have considered homosexual activity "sin."”

USMA01 on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:59:49

“Are you Jesus?
"Jesus, as a faithful Jew (whatever that means) CERTAINLY would have considered homosexual activity "sin""
Your statement "certainly" alludes that you speak for Jesus. Bold, considering Jesus never mentions homosexual activity in the Bible.

Also can you explain what sins the GLTB people have, that others don't?

If your comments are meant to be sarcastic - My Appologizes”

fjg on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:58:22

“No, I don't think so, breadloaf. Jesus took many of Judaism's tenets (no work on the Sabbath/avoid impure, menstruating women, etc.) and tossed them out the window, much to the anger of the Pharisees. Jesus gave us 2 commandments...love God and love each other (although I think he might have made an exception for current-day Republicans!).”
The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

The Nonscience Of The Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Commented Apr 9, 2010 at 14:22:36 in Religion

“A materialist (evolutionist) worldview is absolutely a religion. Watch, I'll prove it:

Explain to me, you materialists, that scientific measurement, evidence, and data collection are all valid forms of acquiring knowledge. If you want to invoke logic, please prove the validity of logic, but don't do it logically.

You can't do it without being circular in your logic and reasoning.”

breadloaf76 on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:55:52

“Let me put it like this, people:

Proposition 1:
A religious belief is any belief in something or other as divine.
Proposition 2:
‘Divine’ means having the status of not depending on anything else.

I do believe that science and logic help us understand the world. But science and logic only hold together because there is a God of order.

A materialist believes in science as if a giant explosion created all kinds of logic and order in the universe. That logic is independent - you can't prove it from within.

So I actually have a non-circular view of science - which none of you do.

FURTHERMORE, you are absolutely inconsistent in your materialist worldview. Can anyone provide a reason a materialist should oppose genocide? Not in your worldview you can't. Try again, and you'll fail as badly as you've failed at this exercise.”

squiems on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:48:51

“If you want to talk about logic, it's a non-sequitur to claim that the belief in the validity of empirical observation is tantamount to religious belief.”

Patrick Alspaugh on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:45:19

“Where is Humeskeptic when you need him?

I guess you're right. Logic can't be proven with logic. It can only be strongly supported by thousands of years of induction. I suppose we should resort to the worship of imaginary beings.”

danzbassman on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:42:38

“come on man, your joking right? No? Okay how's this:

I can prove that scientific measurement is valid easily enough. Lets take a fairly basic and well established scientific principle: Faraday's law of induction. Basically Faraday's law states that you can induce an electric current by moving a conductive wire through a magnetic field. The amount of current induced is predictable given a couple of variables. This is a repeatable and predictable process.

This is how your lawn mower starts when you pull the cord. There's a magneto that spins around and induces an electric current, which sends a small current to the spark plug, add gas vapors to the combustion chamber and voila your mowing your lawn.

Scientific measurement, evidence, and data collection all led to the creation of your lawn mower, which helps keep your lawn looking nice and the neighborhood association from writing you a citation.”

billbb on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:33:31

“That's rich! You use a computer and the laws of physics to deny that laws of physics could exist.

Your circular lack of logic is amusing. You stand there and proclaim - with absolutely no evidence at all - that God made everything and that's that. Then you fall into the silliness of trying to dictate to the One who made all things the exact method and timing of his creation, because of something you read in some book written by humans.

If there is a God and you ever get to meet Him/Her/Whatever, you will doubtless get a lecture on your failing to try to understand the universe presented to you. Just because you do not understand now does not mean that you could not try, if you weren't tripping over your own dogma.

I suggest you give up trying to teach Creation 'Science' and take up teach Arrogance 101. You clearly have the talent.”

HUFFNAME on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:09:48

“What is most charming in your post is that your "proof" that a set of beliefs is a religion is your claim that the rationale for that set of beliefs relies on circular reasoning.

So is it true that

A. All religions rely on circular reasoning?
or
B. All circular reasoning supports some religion?
or
C. Both?”

Maezeppa on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:03:12

“When independent approaches (as when DNA evidence agrees with fossil evidence) yield the same answer, the reliability of each method is confirmed and amplified.

Evolution is a well established matter of scientific fact. It's not a philosophy and not a religion. It is predicated on testing and inquiry, going where the evidence leads, allowing the evidence to raise new questions as it informs.”

holl7510 on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:02:53

“I cannot stand when people attempt to create a false equivalency between faith and science. I understand the point of your supposed logical conundrum: trying to show that no matter how hard one tries, you cannot prove the validity of sensory input without taking a supposed leap of faith. Therefore, all science is based faith, therefore science is religion.

Here is the flaw in your argument (and in ID), it ignores the fact that to be considered science, a theory must be falsifiable. So my 'knowledge' that I exist, that evolution is valid, ect. are hypotheses, well supported by evidence and for all practical purposes can be considered fact. However, where science differs from religion is that all of these have the potential to be proven false. Faith and rational assumption (based on experience and data) are not the same.

If by religion you mean that 'materialists' place a lot of import on science (ect.), than you are right, this is one of the possible definitions of religion. But we all know that is not the definition you are using; your false equivalency between faith-based religion and science is absurd and misleading.”

HUFFNAME on Apr 9, 2010 at 15:00:42

“No. Their justification will not be circular. It will be problematic, technically, but not on that ground. The problem arises not due to the rationale circling back but due to its coming to rest on unfalsifiable (and so, unverifiable) belief.

One presumably cannot perform an experiment which "proves" the existence of causality. Causality can't be deductively established. It must ultimately be taken on faith. This "problem", however, won't trouble most people since the inductive support for causality is, well, maybe the largest body of data in human possession.

Furthermore I'll bet it doesn't trouble you, either, since unless you conduct your life in a way pretty much unrecognizable by other human beings you are taking causality on faith every day, just as Darwin and Newton and Oral Roberts did.

So whomever fed you this argument that Empiricism is circular misled you, or you misheard him or her.”

PWM on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:57:08

“Science is not a religion, it is about explaining the world.

Religion is mythology built around meaningless jargon words like "god" which cannot be defined without resorting to the most subjective of abstractions like "love."

Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. George Orwell, 1984.

There is no orthodoxy in science.”

WhereIsTheTruth on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:55:01

“Let me get this straight - you want us to prove the validity of logic without doing it logically? Ok... "For the Bible tells me so." Now, can you explain the logic behind accepting that as a reasonable answer to any question, but without using scripture of other biblical platitudes?”

gh0st on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:54:05

“"if you want to invoke logic"

This is an **option** in a discussion/argument from your perspective???!? Really???

I would be laughing out loud if I wasn't just so completely stunned. This *has* to be a tr0ll. Just has to be. My view of my fellow human beings can not take this blow.

And prove a line of logic without using logic??! Come on! An SNL skit couldn't have come up with a more asinine line. The fact that people like this get to pretend to themselves that they are just brilliant is one of the worst side effects of the Internet.”

Sacchinftw on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:42:48

“If those are your conditions then the meaning of the term religion cannot be defined since defining religion requires reasoning which you've arbitrarily decided to be void and so I ask you to be more specific with your question.”

frank2061 on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:39:40

“You've proven nothing other than philosophical theory can be twisted to the point of absurdity. Watch, I'll prove it:

Prove to us that everything you think is real isn't just your imagination, including this post.”

Creag on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:39:29

“How do you propose one looks at the word without invoking logic or evidence?”

vagabond78666 on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:36:42

“wow,..step away from the bong....OR scroll back the amount of meds you are taking...”

Dave24 on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:36:09

“The irony is that you're trying to use logic to disprove logic. You make as much sense as throwing alphabet letters against a fridge door.”

Billy2 on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:35:24

“Can we give a nonsense answer to your nonsense question?”

RuinedSaint on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:35:12

“"Explain to me, you materialists, that scientific measurement, evidence, and data collection are all valid forms of acquiring knowledge."

Simple; all the measurements, evidence and data I collect can be passed off the hundreds, thousands, and even millions of other people for them to review, study, test, and confirm.

It is through this continuous process (aka, The Scientific Method) that the information collected is validated.

This isn't circular logic; this is how that computer you're sitting in front of was invented.”
huffingtonpost entry

The Creepiest Children's Books Ever (PICTURES)

Commented Mar 29, 2010 at 23:55:18 in Comedy

“C'mon, people: _Barack_ by Jonah Winter is the creepiest children's book by far. It should have been titled _Barack: Our Dear Leader_. "Even his enthusiastic supporters may squirm at such adulation" says the review on Amazon.”
My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain

My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain

Commented Mar 21, 2010 at 17:20:41 in Politics

“I agree. Moore says that the sperm is alive on its own.”
My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain

My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain

Commented Mar 21, 2010 at 17:20:19 in Politics

“That is the dumbest opinion I have ever read on the subject. The determination as to what is "alive" and is not is quantifiable, it is not based on a decision. As if the mother just thinks, "Well, I think I'll deliver the baby, " and then BAMPH! LIFE ARRIVES! Go back to 9th grade.”

f0rTyLeGz on Mar 21, 2010 at 19:15:44

“Since Roe v Wade that is the reality. Since then, if a woman becomes pregnant and she doesn't want IT, then IT is a "fetus." But if she does want IT, then IT is a "baby."”
Arrest At Wal-Mart After Racial Announcement In New Jersey

Arrest At Wal-Mart After Racial Announcement In New Jersey

Commented Mar 21, 2010 at 17:17:08 in New York

“The problem with yelling fire in a theater is that people will get injured as they scramble for the doors. But the problem with telling all blacks to leave WalMart is that blacks get their feelings hurt.

It was dumb, but face it: this is just persecution for transgressing the PC lines.”

patrickhenrypress on Mar 21, 2010 at 17:44:16

“And if someone were trampled?

There are no innocent explanations for this behavior. It may be a prank to some, but it's evidence of an ongoing change of attitude among a sector of the population. What happens next is anything but amusing. I lived through the 60's.

Race-baiting by the right is incitement to civil unrest, and worse. I may be mistaken, but I sense one of its victims here. This boy needs counseling.”
next
1 - 25