David Anderson
Recent Activity
As of 2008, yes, but what are the odds?
Frm my layman's perspective, it sure seems that until we have a far more advanced understanding of the singularity from which we surmise the Big Bang originated, the existence of an ultimate "creator" cannot be ruled out with certainty. Conversely, I have seen zero evidence to persuade me that such a creator must exist, or even should exist. This quandary is still the ultimate question in my mind. I believe that given enough time -- and money -- humankind will make inexorable progress in physics that will someday make today's theories of dark matter and infinite multiverses seem as quaint as the idea of phlogiston. I rue that the same cannot be said of religion. … Read More
February 13, 2008 |
David Anderson commented on Why are so many people so opposed to an Atheist in government? on February 13, 2008, 1:09 AM
Probably because people vote for candidates who mirror their own predilections. As an atheist myself, I generally look askance at the religious leanings of my chosen candidates in deference to their commitment to issues that matter to me. Given two candidates equal in every way, othe than one being a theist and the other atheist, I would vote for the atheist every time. I have no doubt that theists would share this same prejudice. Consequently, until the day comes that politicians can count on more votes from atheists than theists, it takes no brains to guess who they will court more fervently.
David Anderson commented on How should the Bible be interpreted? on February 12, 2008, 8:14 PM
With great skepticism.
David Anderson commented on Re: Re: What is this election's most dangerous idea? on February 3, 2008, 1:54 PM
You have it exactly right, TexanCraig. I would like to amplify a bit, though, because if I understand Sen. Clinton's proposal, it is much less than a single-payer universal plan. As such, a reasonable case could be made that it is a very dangerous idea. Imagine who would get coverage and the exorbitant prices they would be forced to pay for it when the insurance companies have completed their databases on genetic predispositions to disease. Of course, the government would then be forced to step in and legislate that no one could be denied coverage. In response, the insurance-industry lobbyists would tie up Congress and the public airwaves in an endless and obscenely expensive battle that benefits no one. In contrast, cutting out the middlemen -- the insurance companies -- would end this nonsense, provided that the GOP gets behind it. If the GOP persists in its opposition we can burn our efforts and enormous piles of money endlessly.So Sen. McCain could be correct, although not for the reasons he articulates. Meanwhile, the price and fractured supply of health care in this country will continue to be an object of universal ridicule, scorn and shame.
David Anderson commented on How should the Bible be interpreted? on February 13, 2008, 1:14 AM
With great skepticism.