If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?

[RGA]

Twisted - explain the logical faults - calling it BS is your usual history whenever something doesn't fit your belief you resort to name calling and belittling. This tells me you have no solid footing and you clearly have none here.

You don't want to use your science training (engineers of course are merely the Oompa Loompa's of science so I kind of cut them slack) but to say you can't test it is intellectual dishonesty. No you can't prove/disprove God but the onus of proof is on the person making the claim - and unless you turn your brain off you KNOW THIS IS TRUE - calling it BS makes you look like a tool.

And you also KNOW but ignore that you most certainly can test "the Sky God" premise with first year basic logic courses which you must have taken to have an engineering degree - unless universities in the U.S. are so bankrupt they too have succumb to the religious right and don't make it mandatory. That basic logic and main point of my previous post which Frenchmon ignored, to blather on about his disagreement over Bible interpretation, didn't surprise me. He didn't want to go anywhere near the God is omnipotent or omniscient arguments and neither do you.

Regurgitated - I love that. 2+2=4 is a regurgitated question and answer found in numerous Grade 1 classrooms. Yes it is a regurgitated teaching - it also happens to be FACT.

Rather than address the issues of basic logic/paradox you resort to name calling - your faith is so fragile that you can actually look into it and say "gee this doesn't make the least bit of sense" maybe I should consider the possibility that at some point I was brainwashed. Most 5 year olds believe in Santa and then eventually have a chuckle that everyone fooled you - teachers, parents, siblings, and friends. You had no reason to distrust them so most people TRULY believe in him and even write letters and put out cookies. You get up and the cookies and milk are half eaten - every fiber in your being believes fully in this tale because everyone in your life reinforces it over and over and over. People you trust immensely - so of course you believe. Then one day a friend at school perhaps will let you in on the joke. "there's no Santa" - the child STILL believes until they confront their parents or teacher. Some kids cry.

Well I'm you're little school friend telling you that you've been had but unfortunately no one told the priest or your parents.

There are several avenues to test whether there is an "omnipotent and omniscient God " and those tests "knock down" the possibility and from several sciences/disciplines not just Biology. Dawkins makes several correct cases that destroy the notion of the creation of man - and it's irrefutable. And if the ship is still barely afloat Physics and Geology put a few more torpedoes into the ship - and if it still hanging on - Philosophy comes in with an A-bomb air strike to finish it off.

Dawkins is an easy read - pretty much spells it out as easy as it can get - You should be an Atheist by the time you get to chapter 4. Not an Agnostic an Atheist - Agnostics just want to cover their ass. Although plenty of Christians on boards have told me that "I should believe because what have I got to lose" or "if you don't believe what's to stop you from doing evil things like rape and murder." Really - the only thing stopping them from killing and raping is believing in God. In that case please believe away - if that's the kind of person you are at your core then please believe in God and don't kill people. And of course just "saying" you believe in God to cover your butt - pretty sure if there was a God he'd know you were just covering your butt. Don't think you can fake God out. And he might be three times more angry if you try than say "gee God I was wrong I didn't believe in you - why did you make me an Atheist?

This is something like a 3 minute read and should raise enough alarm bells to make objective minds seriously doubt any of the Sky God teachings.

God the all-powerful: The Paradox of Omnipotence

[Feanor]

Sir T has nailed it, RGA. You simply aren't going to dissuade people from religious believe by logical argument -- he's also correct that it's pointless to explain Biblical faith to non-believers like you and me: we're past that.

I had a religious upbringing; but I call doubts from the early age when my mother, (a religious person all her life), admitted the Santa Claus didn't actually continued to insist that God does.

I read The God Delusion only about 3-4 years ago, but all of Dawkins' arguments had occurred to me decades earlier, (though Dawkins is more articulate than I could be). He was preaching to the converted, (to use a religious analogy )

BTW, I agree with Dawkins on the agnostic vs. atheist distinction. This is like ...

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

I'm tending to call myself a "non-believer" these days since it easier than getting into arguments about whether Atheism is, itself, a faith.

Look up "Russell's Cosmic Teapot" ... Let me Google that for you.

[RGA]

Sir T has nailed it, RGA. You simply aren't going to dissuade people from religious believe by logical argument -- he's also correct that it's pointless to explain Biblical faith to non-believers like you and me: we're past that.

I had a religious upbringing; but I call doubts from the early age when my mother, (a religious person all her life), admitted the Santa Claus didn't actually continued to insist that God does.

I read The God Delusion only about 3-4 years ago, but all of Dawkins' arguments had occurred to me decades earlier, (though Dawkins is more articulate than I could be). He was preaching to the converted, (to use a religious analogy )

BTW, I agree with Dawkins on the agnostic vs. atheist distinction. This is like ...



I'm tending to call myself a "non-believer" these days since it easier than getting into arguments about whether Atheism is, itself, a faith.

Look up "Russell's Cosmic Teapot" ... Let me Google that for you.

I believe people who can reason and think logically and put their faith to the fire can in fact be dissuaded - otherwise I would not bother posting. I've met several Catholic/Christians over the years who changed views in their 30s and 40s which is quite a long held belief system. It's easy to drop Santa when your 7. It's much harder to drop the Big Santa when you're 40.

Further a great many people go from fanatical belief to the millions and millions who call themselves Christian but are kind of "Liberal Christian" who still vote for Obama. If you're willing to vote for a party that is for stem cell research, women's body is her choice, and has generally adopted the 21st century mentality and science then you're already what I would call a "soft Christian." Sure you believe in God and Jesus and the fairy tale but in the "be kind to your fellow man" and "making society better makes your life better (oh no borderline socialism) too. In other words even though I don't believe in the book these are the people who interpreted the message properly. The other "Greed is Good" Gordon Gecko cruelty bits seem to be the current (not the past) Republican platform. Pretty Sure if Jesus was around he would not deny you medical and then take your house as payment for saving your life. Pretty sure Jesus would ask the town to pitch in a certain percent of their yearly wage to help save people. Jesus would not be a complete money grubbing prick. Apparently Republican voters view Jesus as someone who, if around today, would be a CEO of an HMO heavy on the denial of claims and strong arming tactics to force people into bankruptcy the second they can't pay. The Republican platform and world view is that the most important thing in life is the accumulation of wealth and power. Greed is good and rich people are better than poor people. I must have missed where Jesus was all about collecting stuff over making the world a better place for as many as you can. I may disagree with Religious Christian Democrats about God but at least they get the MAIN gist of the message of the New Testament right. If Homosexuality is a sin to them they know it's God's place to judge not theirs to go bash their heads in with bats.


I'm not a huge fan of Atheist as a term either because like most terms religious people screw it up - like "Theory." Atheist does not mean a person is "sure" that "God does not exist." Even Dawkins has a scale (i believe 1-7) on one end "sure that God exists" and the other end "Sure there is no human written sky God" as 7 - he places himself as a 6.9.

But that's the same for the Spaghetti Monster and teapot. Sure there could be a spaghetti monster in the sky - I can't prove there isn't and no one here can - and I can't disprove unicorns, ghosts, fairies, vampires, or Xenu and neither can Christians or Muslims etc.

Prove that there is no Xenu and never was. Oh you can't DISPROVE that he existed so that means he's there. Yet a Christian will not believe in Xenu for the same reasons I don't believe in Xenu or Unicorns or Fairies. But when it comes to their faith I'm supposed to make an exception. Seriously? It's painful reasoning.

[Feanor]

...
Prove that there is no Xenu and never was. Oh you can't DISPROVE that he existed so that means he's there. Yet a Christian will not believe in Xenu for the same reasons I don't believe in Xenu or Unicorns or Fairies. But when it comes to their faith I'm supposed to make an exception. Seriously? It's painful reasoning.

Scientology devotees prove that people will believe anything they WANT to believe however ridiculous.

E.g. People can believe that abortion must be prohibited under any and all circumstances, but that one mustn't support the teenage single mother & child because that would reward irresponsible behavior.

Or they can believe that more Supply-Side, Trickle-down, Bribe the Rich tax schemes will create great jobs for the middle class despite 30+ years of the failure of that strategy.

[RGA]

Scientology devotees prove that people will believe anything they WANT to believe however ridiculous.

E.g. People can believe that abortion must be prohibited under any and all circumstances, but that one mustn't support the teenage single mother & child because that would reward irresponsible behavior.

Or they can believe that more Supply-Side, Trickle-down, Bribe the Rich tax schemes will create great jobs for the middle class despite 30+ years of the failure of that strategy.

And that abortion is wrong but it's perfectly fine to kill the abortion doctor and also be for Capital Punishment.

And then if you point to the logical faults you're called an idiot.

One of the great Professors I had in University had us select an essay topic. This was a philosophy course on contemporary moral problems - abortion, capital punishment, Euthanasia etc.

You selected a topic and a side. You submitted the proposal. The prof said great "You have selected to argue for Pro-Choice" And then the prof made a change to everyone's proposals - they got the topic they selected but not the side of the debate they chose. We were all forced to write for the opposing belief system. So the religious students had to write a paper advocating pro-choice and vice-versa.

You can make a lot of very good arguments for Pro-life without ever needing to cite Bible quotes.

I took a criminology course and the professor wanted a debate over capital punishment and asked for volunteers to argue for the death penalty - I was the only person to put up my hand. Eesh I took flack from classmates who thought I was for it. (Canada remember and many budding lawyers).

I argued from a world view population model, and "perceived" immorality. More people die in construction accidents than everyone combined from the the death penalty - and that media individualized the deaths of criminals. Even if they get the odd one wrong - so be it. etc.

Further the chicken and the egg argument of the following scenario. My case was as follows - It is wrong to put a man to death who is a confessed serial killer who video taped his murders and killed 20 children. DNA, Video, confession and witnesses - yes they say capital punishment is murder so you're no better because you too have resorted to murder.

Scenario 2 is a man is holding a knife over a kid's head and is about to murder the kid. You have a gun and only one clear shot to kill this would be killer to save the boy's life. Do you shoot. Answer from the anti-capital punishment crowd was of course.

But wait - this man has not actually killed anyone - to this point he has not committed any crime but it's ok to kill this innocent man but not okay to kill a serial killer after the fact. Of course the guy with the knife may have seen a snake on the boy's arm no facing you and he was about to stab the snake -- oops.

There is a counter to the above as well of course - one is to save a life so you choose the lesser evil to save or the evil to kill while the after the fact murder is more isolated etc.

As for trickle down economics - of course it works - it works for the rich.

This is a population that is analogous to the Ferengi in Star Trek Deep Space Nine. If you watched that show at all you will know that everything is about profit. But of course there were rich Ferengi and good businessmen who had the "lobes for business" Women were second rate (not too off the mark either as an analogy) but most Ferengi were poor.

So why didn't the Ferengi scrap the model and start over - why didn't they become more socialized? Because every Ferengi believed that someday they too would become rich. Kind of the "Ferengian Dream."

Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" still ranks as my favorite play and is hugely relevant today and probably for all time under a similar economic structure. When people figure out that a "solid" income and a "solid" safety net for ALL is better than high risk high reward propositions then everyone is better off and the entire country gains. But it's the same play the lotto for a retirement plan belief system that people have.

The same people who don't want the government to "look after them" with tax dollars are perfectly fine believing that if you make billionaires hundred billionaires that they will "look after them" by giving them a job. It's just so dumb. The rich are not going to give you a job - they're going to use the tax break to open a plant in Whenzhou, China and hire 20 people who combined make less than 1 American worker. So you're ass is out of a job. You'd think these right wing dimwits would have learned from 2000-2008 that it wasn't Obama who lost your job.

The great thing about Star Trek is that it was basically Dicken's idealistic future. The trick is to get from A (the current mess) to the ideal (TNGish world view). At least move in that direction. Romney is a Ferengi but at least Quark was honest about it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Twisted - explain the logical faults - calling it BS is your usual history whenever something doesn't fit your belief you resort to name calling and belittling. This tells me you have no solid footing and you clearly have none here.

You don't want to use your science training (engineers of course are merely the Oompa Loompa's of science so I kind of cut them slack) but to say you can't test it is intellectual dishonesty. No you can't prove/disprove God but the onus of proof is on the person making the claim - and unless you turn your brain off you KNOW THIS IS TRUE - calling it BS makes you look like a tool.

And you also KNOW but ignore that you most certainly can test "the Sky God" premise with first year basic logic courses which you must have taken to have an engineering degree - unless universities in the U.S. are so bankrupt they too have succumb to the religious right and don't make it mandatory. That basic logic and main point of my previous post which Frenchmon ignored, to blather on about his disagreement over Bible interpretation, didn't surprise me. He didn't want to go anywhere near the God is omnipotent or omniscient arguments and neither do you.

Regurgitated - I love that. 2+2=4 is a regurgitated question and answer found in numerous Grade 1 classrooms. Yes it is a regurgitated teaching - it also happens to be FACT.

Rather than address the issues of basic logic/paradox you resort to name calling - your faith is so fragile that you can actually look into it and say "gee this doesn't make the least bit of sense" maybe I should consider the possibility that at some point I was brainwashed. Most 5 year olds believe in Santa and then eventually have a chuckle that everyone fooled you - teachers, parents, siblings, and friends. You had no reason to distrust them so most people TRULY believe in him and even write letters and put out cookies. You get up and the cookies and milk are half eaten - every fiber in your being believes fully in this tale because everyone in your life reinforces it over and over and over. People you trust immensely - so of course you believe. Then one day a friend at school perhaps will let you in on the joke. "there's no Santa" - the child STILL believes until they confront their parents or teacher. Some kids cry.

Well I'm you're little school friend telling you that you've been had but unfortunately no one told the priest or your parents.

There are several avenues to test whether there is an "omnipotent and omniscient God " and those tests "knock down" the possibility and from several sciences/disciplines not just Biology. Dawkins makes several correct cases that destroy the notion of the creation of man - and it's irrefutable. And if the ship is still barely afloat Physics and Geology put a few more torpedoes into the ship - and if it still hanging on - Philosophy comes in with an A-bomb air strike to finish it off.

Dawkins is an easy read - pretty much spells it out as easy as it can get - You should be an Atheist by the time you get to chapter 4. Not an Agnostic an Atheist - Agnostics just want to cover their ass. Although plenty of Christians on boards have told me that "I should believe because what have I got to lose" or "if you don't believe what's to stop you from doing evil things like rape and murder." Really - the only thing stopping them from killing and raping is believing in God. In that case please believe away - if that's the kind of person you are at your core then please believe in God and don't kill people. And of course just "saying" you believe in God to cover your butt - pretty sure if there was a God he'd know you were just covering your butt. Don't think you can fake God out. And he might be three times more angry if you try than say "gee God I was wrong I didn't believe in you - why did you make me an Atheist?

This is something like a 3 minute read and should raise enough alarm bells to make objective minds seriously doubt any of the Sky God teachings.

God the all-powerful: The Paradox of Omnipotence

RGA,
If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between science and religion, then how do you think you can convince me of anything? Science can be tested, faith cannot. Faith is not logical, and logic does not explain all things. Faith is personal, which is why I am not going to engage in a public conversation about it - especially not with a person I consider an Idiot.

I don't give a damn about you stupid links, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY BELIEFS PERIOD. So just give it up. If you want to be an atheist, good, be one. However, none of your soulless links or comments are going to move me one bit. Say take your link(and your stupid opinions), and shove it up you bum.

And you must know that your attempts at trying to insult me are as weak as your ability to use your brain. I have already written you off as too stupid to be believed. You must know after all these years that you cannot bait me with your stupid little comments.

[RGA]

RGA,
If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between science and religion, then how do you think you can convince me of anything? Science can be tested, faith cannot. Faith is not logical, and logic does not explain all things. Faith is personal, which is why I am not going to engage in a public conversation about it - especially not with a person I consider an Idiot.

I don't give a damn about you stupid links, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY BELIEFS PERIOD. So just give it up. If you want to be an atheist, good, be one. However, none of your soulless links or comments are going to move me one bit. Say take your link(and your stupid opinions), and shove it up you bum.

And you must know that your attempts at trying to insult me are as weak as your ability to use your brain. I have already written you off as too stupid to be believed. You must know after all these years that you cannot bait me with your stupid little comments.

So it's back to name calling. Yup Idiots are the ones who question Hocus Pocus BS.

Soulless links? Please direct me to the links which have "souls" - oops I know silly me I'm gonna want evidence of "souls" that are in "links." Are these souls(ghosts) different than the other mythical types supposedly inside of us that you believe in?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So it's back to name calling. Yup Idiots are the ones who question Hocus Pocus BS.

Soulless links? Please direct me to the links which have "souls" - oops I know silly me I'm gonna want evidence of "souls" that are in "links." Are these souls(ghosts) different than the other mythical types supposedly inside of us that you believe in?

:You call it name calling, I call it identifying who you really are.

[Feanor]

RGA,
If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between science and religion, then how do you think you can convince me of anything? Science can be tested, faith cannot. Faith is not logical, and logic does not explain all things. Faith is personal, which is why I am not going to engage in a public conversation about it - especially not with a person I consider an Idiot.

I don't give a damn about you stupid links, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY BELIEFS PERIOD. So just give it up. If you want to be an atheist, good, be one. However, none of your soulless links or comments are going to move me one bit. Say take your link(and your stupid opinions), and shove it up you bum.

And you must know that your attempts at trying to insult me are as weak as your ability to use your brain. I have already written you off as too stupid to be believed. You must know after all these years that you cannot bait me with your stupid little comments.

So it seems that almost nobody is above name calling -- I'll admit it was me that requested that this thread be closed.

I feel reasonably comfortable & safe with a person like you who can reasonably compartmentalize their conciousness between areas that require empirical evidence & reason from those where they can indulge in believing whatever makes them feel good.

I think I speak for RGA in this to an extent, though -- goodness knows -- he can speak for himself.

But the world has a whole lot of people who cannot so reasonably compartmentalize their beliefs, but permit their non-rational beliefs to predominate in areas where ignoring rational, empirical evidence is harmful. And who furthermore strive might-and-main to force the tenets of their non-rational belief on to the lives and actions of others.

[JohnMichael]

So it seems that almost nobody is above name calling -- I'll admit it was me that requested that this thread be closed.

Your request alone was not why the thread was closed. I did not close the thread until calling one another inbreds began. I knew others were becoming uncomfortable with the thread. Yet others wanted to continue the lovely tone of the posts we had been reading. Maybe I should add a warning to the title?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your request alone was not why the thread was closed. I did not close the thread until calling one another inbreds began. I knew others were becoming uncomfortable with the thread. Yet others wanted to continue the lovely tone of the posts we had been reading. Maybe I should add a warning to the title?

Rated NC-17? Not for the faint of heart? Beware of the rantings of a psychopathic atheist?

I like the last one.......

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So it seems that almost nobody is above name calling -- I'll admit it was me that requested that this thread be closed.

Bill, how could you? This is unthinkable that you would do such a thing. I am disappointed.......well maybe not! LOLOL

I feel reasonably comfortable & safe with a person like you who can reasonably compartmentalize their consciousness between areas that require empirical evidence & reason from those where they can indulge in believing whatever makes them feel good.

My faith is intensely personal. I do not recruit, or make any attempts to change anyone over to my way of thinking when it comes to faith. In other words, it is not exportable, and IMC not open for discussion. Besides, what is the logic in discussing my faith with an profoundly adamant atheist? Can you see what a waste of time that would be?

I think I speak for RGA in this to an extent, though -- goodness knows -- he can speak for himself.

And speak, and speak, and speak, and speak, and speak some more, and more, and more(and this can go on into infinity). He can so this while saying absolutely nothing in the process.

But the world has a whole lot of people who cannot so reasonably compartmentalize their beliefs, but permit their non-rational beliefs to predominate in areas where ignoring rational, empirical evidence is harmful. And who furthermore strive might-and-main to force the tenets of their non-rational belief on to the lives and actions of others.

Speaking to your last sentence, there is no way in the world I am going to do that....no way. I understand clearly what belongs to science, and what belongs to faith. The two are incompatible, and cannot be mixed together - hence why I reject Richard asinine comment about my adherence to science in one area, and not doing it in another. If Dawkins is so great, then why can't he get out of that wheelchair, breathe on his own, and heal himself?

Let's face it, even a atheist has some measure of faith. They breathe air they cannot see, and they believe they will live to see tomorrow(and plan their days just like I do with that in mind), they drive cars on the road, ride in airplanes and expect to reach their destination, and they believe that medication will heal their sickness. They may not believe in God, but they have faith in something right?

I have no understanding of why anyone would come here, insult people because of their faith, and make any attempt to dissuade them from believing in whatever they want to by presenting the opinions of a mere man. By presenting him as your definitive answer to all things, then he becomes the god - and sorry, I don't have that kind of belief in men, especially one that cannot heal himself. Dawkins does not know all there is to know, and that makes him an unsuitable vehicle to attempt to change what I believe in.

A sighted and double blind test has different objectives. That is clear. One establishes a personal preference, the other removes it as a basis of decision making. It is the same with science and faith(not religion). One seeks to make one a better person who interacts better with others(when done perfectly which we don't), and the other is a quest for knowledge where it is proven(of which we don't know 1/100's of in reality).

[Feanor]

...
My faith is intensely personal. I do not recruit, or make any attempts to change anyone over to my way of thinking when it comes to faith. In other words, it is not exportable, and IMC not open for discussion. Besides, what is the logic in discussing my faith with an profoundly adamant atheist? Can you see what a waste of time that would be? ...

Yes!

...
Let's face it, even a atheist has some measure of faith. They breathe air they cannot see, and they believe they will live to see tomorrow(and plan their days just like I do with that in mind), they drive cars on the road, ride in airplanes and expect to reach their destination, and they believe that medication will heal their sickness. They may not believe in God, but they have faith in something right? ...

Well, not necessarily "faith"; let's say they have "reasonable expectations" about some things like airplanes and doctors' advice.


Some people reject God for subjective reasons that can very well be non-rational. On the other hand, most atheists I've known are fundamentally skeptics who naturally tend to doubt rather than faith. Like good scientists, they might accept empirical evidence and work with theories based on it, but remain open to evidence to the contrary. So, no, these atheists don't have faith in the usual religious sense.

[RGA]

Science isn't faith and I don't have faith that a given medicine will work. It has been tested to work and deemed to work then it will work. If it has a 90% success rate then I have a "reasonably high" expectation that it will work for me - but I won't curse the devil if it doesn't.

Dawkins the Biologist isn't in a wheelchair. I assume you have him mixed up with Stephen Hawking (Physicist) both of whom are Atheists.

As for the air we breathe you can see it via tests and you can certain feel it. I don't need faith in air since when it's not there I'll be dead. I can't understand how you could even make the absurd analogy.

Philosophy and science (some disciplines viewed as stronger to weaker) are empirical and require testing and evidence to support theory. Physics, Chemistry, and Biology head the fields.

The reason I have trouble with DBT isn't because the methodology is wrong it is because it is completely misapplied by audiophiles and non science types. Further it enters the realm of psychology which isn't even called a science at most universities but is in fact part of the Arts degree program. Regardless, DBT in audio auditions is "weak science" and is open to numerous attacks - which is why so many people argue against relying on them in any kind of absolute way. On the other hand if someone wants to "go with them" then fine by me. Since believing in the difference or not isn't going to cause deaths who really cares?

And Sir T - As for long posts - Pot meet Kettle

Feanor

Yes you're right about compartmentalized beliefs. But I am not convinced that "truly" happens given the Sir T's analogies about Science or what equals the term "faith." He seems to think that if I can't see God I don't believe but I can't see "air" yet I have faith that it is there. Sight has nothing to do with it since the human eye is so bad. Surely if a designer made it I'd be able to see air. But it was never designed it evolved and it evolved into something it needs to be "which is good enough" for the purpose required.

As an aside - I am not adamant on Atheism - if someone can prove to me that there is a Sky -God I'll be happy to pray. Atheists have open minds to new evidence that comes along. In a vacuum of evidence however we don't fill in life altering feel good stories to explain stuff.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And Sir T - As for long posts - Pot meet Kettle

Yeah well, I actually say something. You on the other hand provide us with a long winded air sandwich that can be said in far fewer words(Which results in a little less air, but still no substance). My posts are technical in nature which requires an explainantion, yours is just long winded opinion pieces with absolutely no technical merit at all.

Feanor

Yes you're right about compartmentalized beliefs. But I am not convinced that "truly" happens given the Sir T's analogies about Science or what equals the term "faith." He seems to think that if I can't see God I don't believe but I can't see "air" yet I have faith that it is there. Sight has nothing to do with it since the human eye is so bad. Surely if a designer made it I'd be able to see air. But it was never designed it evolved and it evolved into something it needs to be "which is good enough" for the purpose required.

If you cannot see the compartmentalization, then this is a confirmation that not only are you an idiot, but you are a blind one. If Bill can recongnize it and confirm's it is there, that is the only reasonable explaination - you DON"T WANT to see it.

As far as the human eye being so bad - not only do you not have a audio clue, but you have no clue how acute the eye really is. Your comment is ignorant, and not based on fact, which is par for the course for you.

Who gives a damn about convincing you of anything? You should know by now that I don't give a damn what you think. It really should be crystal clear.

As an aside - I am not adamant on Atheism - if someone can prove to me that there is a Sky -God I'll be happy to pray. Atheists have open minds to new evidence that comes along. In a vacuum of evidence however we don't fill in life altering feel good stories to explain stuff.

Based on what I have read here, you are a adamant athiest. And what is worse, is you come here and insult and try and change my mind using the words of another man who is as fallible as I am.

How stupid is that?

I think the real reason why you are still here blowing out all of this hot air is because you weakly and ineffectively tried to goad me into religious arguement - and stupidly wanted me to analyze it using scientific methods, and I refused causing you to hurl your kidneys out of your nose and ears.

Pobre bebe', se siente frustrado y eso es una verguenza. Aqui es una toalla de pepel, limpia tu auto hasta.