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

[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.

[RGA]

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.

Most of your windbag replies have nothing to do with practical experience - you remind me of a borderline Aspergers type who can't understand what people are actually talking about. Real world listening to real world albums versus technical comparisons of 1 recording done in isolation without providing specific information to allow anyone to verify (ie; peer review) your experience. No one cares.

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.

Again learn to read - yes you compartmentalize but your analogy was patently absurd. You separate science from religion but you liken science to a MERE faith as if it is on the same level as religion in that we put "faith" in technology, medicine, and that the earth will be here tomorrow. No one can possibly be stupid enough to buy into that. Compartmentalized minds can also merely indicate a borderline split personality. You've said several times that it's all 'mere man' which implies that science is "lower" in fact and evidence than faith.

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.

Again you're lack of science understanding is ASTOUNDING! The hack university you went to should revoke your degree.

I know you won't actually follow the link because you're too closed minded but how about listen to the world's BEST Biologist who Chairs Oxford University discussing the human eye. I know you're too much of an ego maniac to ever once on any topic EVER admit you're wrong - but the world's best biologist on the human Eye versus you (some "legend in his own mind" weenie who makes movies go boom boom real loud supporting a vacuous industry - LOL). Puhleeze!

Richard Dawkins on Eye Evolution - YouTube

The human eye is an example of why it would NOT be designed.

Incidentally, I have taught the very same simple blind spot experiment in the above link to grade 5 classes and at science fairs. No one walks away thinking the eye is any way shape or form perfect. And only an incompetent BOOB would design the human eye the way it's been designed. So either Evolution is true or God is an incompetent BOOB. And that's your ONLY choices. Let me guess, you're gonna compartmentalize that too.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Most of your windbag replies have nothing to do with practical experience - you remind me of a borderline Aspergers type who can't understand what people are actually talking about. Real world listening to real world albums versus technical comparisons of 1 recording done in isolation without providing specific information to allow anyone to verify (ie; peer review) your experience. No one cares.

Can you tell me what good is practical experience when you don't even have a basic understanding of what you are experiencing. How could you peer review anything, you don't know jack $hit about anything except what you think sounds good. This is a prime example of that.

Hi Resolution Audio article which may be helpful..

Getting a headache off of basic digital audio 101? So you are all opinion, and no education.

Now let's tackle the practical experience slant.

Why soundtracks should be remixed for hometheater

Can't write stuff like this without practical and educational experience can you stupid?

Again learn to read - yes you compartmentalize but your analogy was patently absurd. You separate science from religion but you liken science to a MERE faith as if it is on the same level as religion in that we put "faith" in technology, medicine, and that the earth will be here tomorrow. No one can possibly be stupid enough to buy into that. Compartmentalized minds can also merely indicate a borderline split personality. You've said several times that it's all 'mere man' which implies that science is "lower" in fact and evidence than faith.

See this is where your emotions blind your stupid a$$. You have a bad habit of smushing things together because you CANNOT compartmentalize anything. A mere man has nothing to do with science, but the fallibility of THAT or ANY man. Then you turn to a semantic argument as faith is not a religious construct at all. It is a human construct. Faith is not strictly a religious concept. You can have faith in your spouse, in your kids judgement, that the universe isn't going to collapse around you tomorrow.

1
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

There is a hairsbreadth of difference between "reasonable expectation" and faith. Using the term "reasonable expectation" is designed to distance yourself from anything related to religion, and based on the meaning of the word, it has both religious and non religious connotations.

Again you're lack of science understanding is ASTOUNDING! The hack university you went to should revoke your degree.

Another stupid statement from a stupid person. Nobody can call USC a hack university, and I didn't go there to get a science degree stupid!

I know you won't actually follow the link because you're too closed minded but how about listen to the world's BEST Biologist who Chairs Oxford University discussing the human eye. I know you're too much of an ego maniac to ever once on any topic EVER admit you're wrong - but the world's best biologist on the human Eye versus you (some "legend in his own mind" weenie who makes movies go boom boom real loud supporting a vacuous industry - LOL). Puhleeze!

Richard Dawkins on Eye Evolution - YouTube

The human eye is an example of why it would NOT be designed.

So you complain about being called names, and then you turn around and call names. HYPOCRITE, and a stupid one at that. This is not about the eyes, and you like to deflect to minor non topic stuff to make up for your lack on topic stuff. I have no interest in your link because the topic of this thread is not about the eyes.

Incidentally, I have taught the very same simple blind spot experiment in the above link to grade 5 classes and at science fairs. No one walks away thinking the eye is any way shape or form perfect. And only an incompetent BOOB would design the human eye the way it's been designed. So either Evolution is true or God is an incompetent BOOB. And that's your ONLY choices. Let me guess, you're gonna compartmentalize that too.

Who said the eyes were perfect? I didn't, and this is a prime example that you are so emotional about non emotional stuff, that you cannot even read what is on the page.

Why don't you open a new post so you can talk about the eyes. I sure in the hell am not going to talk about religion, and you stupid weak a$$ goading is not going to take me there.

So, you can take all of your comments and shove them straight up your stupid(to match the rest of you) a$$.