Jim, in all seriousness, people here have never gotten over the Don Dekinger 
call that cost the Cardinals the World Series back in 1985, when they played 

 So, yes, we were looking forward to a Missouri World Series for that reason.  
Maybe an opportunity to make up for that "error"

 But, I'm glad that you and John have a team to cheer for.

 I am strongly in the Royals camp, although, its not looking too good at this 

 There was a good article in the NYT today about the Giant's GM.  I only had 
time to skim it, but hope to check it out later on tonight.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote :

 I genuinely feel sorry for him; he eats the same meal, every damned day.  

 In other news, I have been curious if people were talking before the Series, 
about a Missouri World Series? Almost happened. I remember when I was 
"carpooling" with the other farm hands and construction workers, from the TM 
facility near Waverly, MO, to get our siddhis in Kansas City, we would drive 
Rte. 24 (?) through Independence, with the billboard proclaiming it as Harry 
Truman's birthplace, past the then new Chiefs' and Royals' stadiums, side by 
side, all blue seats for the Royals, and all red seats for the Chiefs, and into 
"the big city". It was always quite a change, with hot water, and unlimited 
electricity - lol. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

 It's a funny place for Barry to roll out his new initiative, this "New 
Approach for Atheists in Dealing With Believers", but I guess it hi-lights the 
dearth of other places where he has any standing.  You'd think this manifesto 
would be better placed on an atheist site (of which I am sure there are 
plenty), but he could run into a little trouble if they check his bona fides.  
Actually, I guess that explains it.  (-:

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

 It sounds like you've found a new vocation, Barry. 

 Go for it.

 Put up posters, or something.  Organize some introductory lectures.

 What do we call it?  "The New Atheism, by Barry W"


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 Intelligent and well-written article about the religious apologetics that is 
rampant these days, and why intelligent people shouldn't stand for it. The 
author makes many good points, but among my favorites are the following, in 
which I've highlighted my favorite section in red:

 How are we to rid ourselves of religion? I don’t know a nonbeliever who 
considers it likely that we will. Even Christopher Hitchens likened it to the 
rats of Camus’ “The Plague,” always scurrying about in a city’s sewers, ready 
to spring forth on us when we have forgotten about the pestilence they carry. 
But we can take action to ensure that we do not unwittingly favor religion’s 
continuation by taking stances, both public and private. (I wrote about this 
previously for Salon here 
 Nonbelievers need to approach faith as a subject like any other, one we can 
talk about and criticize without fear of causing offense – or, in the case of 
Islam, concern for our physical safety.

 This is in fact our constitutional right. The First Amendment forbids Congress 
from establishing an official religion and protects free speech – including 
speech that offends the sentiments of believers. If we disbelieve what 
religion’s canon tells us, we need to say so openly, and in mixed company, 
pointing out that no rational person could believe it or accept it as true and 
valid, were it not for indoctrination, immaturity, willful abandonment of 
reason, fear, or simple feeblemindedness.

 We can also cease displaying knee-jerk respect for those who propagate faith. 
A priest, rabbi, or imam should merit no more deference than a witch doctor – 
all traffic in gullibility, human misery and vulnerability, and none can prove 
the efficacy of their ministrations. We must point out the inherent 
dangerousness of faith itself – of believing things to be true without 
evidence. The British poet Perce Bysshe Shelley, writing two centuries ago, put 
it bluntly: “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the 
onus probandi” – the burden of proof – “rests on the theist.” Claims made on 
the basis of religion should be met by demands for evidence.

 Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists aren’t the issue, 
apologists for religions are 

 Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists ... 
 Major religions all contain macabre fables, explicit injunctions for vile 
behavior no civilzed person should accept

 View on www.salon.com 
 Preview by Yahoo




  • [FairfieldLife]... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
                • ... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
                • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [Fairf... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to