Letters to the Editor
JugSouthgate
Published Letters: 246 Editor's Choice: 13
-
@ An Optimist - why the double standard?
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some of what you say makes sense, but then you mess it all up with dogma.
Like this:
"Continue to being open to learning something that will inspire us.
And yes, be open to faith. Your faith now is in a deep-set belief that there is no God. I understand that."
Great stuff!
This too:
?Because again, I'm sure you don't consider yourself to be a person who understands everything in the known universe."
But then you say this:
"I know God exists, because I am not God and know that the universe that we live in is not supported by the concept of random chance."
How does anyone (other than God) know *for sure* that the universe we live in is not supported by the concept of random chance?
And this:
"Micro evolution occurs all the time. People are taller, frogs are smaller... on and on. But just as Pasteur proved many years ago... there is no case, in this world, no scientifically peer-reviewed experiment, where life emerged from non-life."
Not yet. So what? That doesn't mean it cannot happen, or did not happen, just that nobody has yet figured out how to do it.
A little over 100 years ago, no human had ever flown a heavier-than-air machine, let alone left the earth's atmosphere. Time was considered a constant everywhere, and Newtonian physics explained everything. Well, almost everything.
There were no computers, no TV, etc. In 1900, 10% of babies born alive in the USA did not make it to their first birthday.
Look how much has changed in that time.
Go back 200 years and there was no telegraph, let alone radio or telephone. No railroads let alone cars or trucks. Andrew Jackson's transportation and communication options were much closer to those of Julius Caesar than those of Abraham Lincoln.
Look how much has changed in that time.
Etc. Who can say what the next 100 years will bring?
Or this:
"Science can screw around with organic material, can splice genes and what not.
But a bug will never and has never, emerged from a pile of inorganic material.
Not a single cell has ever emerged from inorganic material."
How do you know for sure? How do you *know* that God didn't set up the universe in such a way that, once started, it could all happen without intervention?
Or this:
"Your belief is a fairy tale of billions of years of primordial sludge that begat life."
Why is it a fairy tale? How do you know it cannot ever happen under any circumstances, no matter how much time is allowed for it to happen?
A human life might reach 100 years under really good conditions. We have records back a few thousand years, no more.
Who of us is to say *for sure* what cannot happen in a million years, let alone a couple of billion years? Who is to say what method The Creator might take if She chose to?
"Just keep reading, keep learning, and keep focused on one thing-
What if? What if?"
I suggest you take your own advice.
For example:
What if the "laws of nature" are really just a manifestation of God? They are eternal, they apply everywhere and to everything, and they act whether we understand them or not. Or at least, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
Some laws of nature are obvious and some are extremely subtle.
Who is to say the laws of nature are not part of God?
-
Oil is the symptom, not the problem, for the USA
[Read the article: Our "black Monday" for oil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's really a matter of the "Manifest Destiny/No Limits" mindset.
The USA has allowed itself to believe the idea that there was always "more" over the next hill, around the next bend, etc. More land, more oil, more water, more speed, etc. "Growth" is always a Good Thing. And "Science" would always find New Things to fix any problems.
Except it's not that simple. It never was, really, but it used to be easier to ignore the problems.
What's really needed is to give up those old ideas of unlimited "growth" and think about sustainablility. But that's a hard sell because it's so different from what we've been taught for so long.
For example, more-efficient cars like diesels and hybrids are a step in the right direction, but the person who drives a 40 mpg car 20,000 miles per year is using just as much oil as the one who drives a 20 mpg car 10,000 miles per year. The real solution is to develop systems where a car is no longer an absolute necessity for almost every transport need.
What will it take for Americans to recognize that their "quality of life" doesn't have to be directly connected to how many gallons/ccf/kWh they "consume" per year?
-
The whole premise is backwards.
[Read the article: Are urbane tomboys truer feminists?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The following is a sweeping generalization and there are some notable exceptions, but:
When not specifically required to dress a certain way (such as job- or school-required uniforms, sensitivity to certain textures, etc.):
Women don't usually dress to please/impress/attract men.
Women usually dress to please themselves, or to make a statement to other women.
Men with any sense realize this. They also realize that the best way to kill the goose that laid the golden egg is to make a woman feel uncomfortable about dressing certain ways.
--
Women have far more clothing choices than men. That should be celebrated.