Furiosae? O Miseras Infantulas!
"Furiosae? O Miseras Infantulas!"
"Furious? Poor Babies!"
Yeah:
One Million Moms Furious ‘Beloved Superheroes Will Be Homosexual’
You are viewing
diaphanus's journal
"Furiosae? O Miseras Infantulas!"
"Furious? Poor Babies!"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Quadringentesima Tertia"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Four Hundred Three"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Quadringentesima Secunda"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Four Hundred Two"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Quadringentesima Prima"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Four Hundred One"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Quadringentesima"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Four Hundred"
"Non Dicis!"
"You Don't Say!"
Gilkey makes a major error in his statement. Religion doesn’t “ask” any sort of question, it supplies a ready made answer: God did it.
"De Bonitate"
"On Goodness"
Add one more data point to the decades-old debate over marijuana legalization: A new study concludes that casual pot smoking - up to one joint per day - does not affect the functioning of your lungs.
The study, published in the Jan. 11 edition of Journal of the American Medical Association, also offered up a nugget that likely will surprise many: Evidence points to slight increases in lung airflow rates and increases in lung volume from occasional marijuana use.
"And the data showed that even up to moderately high-use levels -- one joint a day for seven years -- there is no evidence of decreased air-flow rates or lung volumes,"
Unlike cigarette smokers, marijuana users tend to breathe in deeply when they inhale a joint, which some researchers think might strengthen lung tissue. But the common lung function tests used in the study require the same kind of deep breathing that marijuana smokers are used to, so their good test results might partly reflect lots of practice
17 percent of participants said they'd smoked cigarettes but not marijuana.
On average, cigarette users smoked about 9 cigarettes daily, while average marijuana use was only a joint or two a few times a month -- typical for U.S. marijuana users, Kertesz said.
"Sex Argumenta!"
"Six Arguments!"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Undequadringentesima"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Nine"
"Novum Regnum in Arbore Vitae?"
"A New Kingdom in the Tree of Life?"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Duodequadringentesima"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Eight"
"Argumentum ad Famem"
"The Argument from Hunger"
But Robert Barron, a Catholic priest, thinks I should feel otherwise. Watch the video of this seemingly genial fellow and see how many things you can disagree with in just a few minutes:
I find this the most invidious part of his spiel:
We have deeply ingrained in us a sense of the limitedness of this world that there is something more. In fact, our very wiring for God proves the existence of God. We desire something which transcends the limitations of this world means that we have within us a sort of participation in the eternal. . . Your hunger is not a sign that food is a projection, but your hunger in fact proves the existence of food—your hunger proves the reality of food. Right? It doesn’t mean that food is some kind of subjective projection or illusion. So that our desires are not misleading us: our desires order us to realities—so our desire for God.
That’s a new theological argument to me: The Argument from Hunger. Because we want something so badly, it must exist. Readers might amuse themselves with refuting it.
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Nonagesima Septima"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Seven"
"Hoc Mihi Dicendum Est"
"It Must Say This"
"Optime, Fredericopoli!"
"Very Good, Fredericton!"
"De Verbo Spiritual"
"About the Word Spiritual"
"Magna Episodia!"
"Great Episodes!"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Nonagesima Sexta"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Six"
"Excellens Pellicula!"
"Excellent Video!"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Nonagesima Quinta"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Five"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Nonagesima Quarta"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Four"
"Attractivae Sunt!"
"They Are Attractive!"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Nonagesima Tertia"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Three"
"Maximus et Philosophia"
"Massimo and Philosophy"
(Dawkins still appears to be convinced that religion will be defeated by rationality alone. Were that the case, David Hume would have sufficed.)
And then of course there is the old time favorite theme of philosophy not making progress. I have debunked that one too, but the crucial point is that progress in philosophy is not and should not be measured by the standards of science, just like the word “progress” has to be interpreted in any field according to that field’s issues and methods, not according to science’s issues and methods. (And incidentally, how’s progress on that string theory thingy going, Lawrence? It has been 25 years and counting, and still no empirical evidence...)
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Nonagesima Secunda"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-Two"
"Chrysallis Regina Praeclarissima Est"
"Queen Chrysalis Is Really Famous"
"Nova Derivativa Verba Latina, Pars Tricentesima Nonagesima Prima"
"New Latin Derivatives, Part Three Hundred Ninety-One"