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

[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$$.

[RGA]

Man you are long winded saying nothing.

Once agauin you have it mostly wrong.

There is not a hairsbreath difference between faith (or reasonable expectation) in any of the things you just mentioned versus faith in God. People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.

No one has that same level of expectation of their buddy Joe meeting them at Starbucks at 6pm because he said so and is usually always on time. Science types will make the adjustments.

A person having Faith that flying themselves into buildings because it's the word of their God so they can go to heaven and get 72 virgins is just slightly different than me hiring Fred the accountant with the expectation and I suppose "faith" that Fred will turn the work in when he says he will. This usage of the term faith is not remotely the same as religious "Faith" and that is because if you ask me whether I am 100% sure Fred will absolutely without question and without doubt hand in the work when he says I will say No.

That's the key difference - doubt. I am reasonably sure I will wake up tomorrow but I am not 100% of this. A spider could come in and bite me - my heart could take a holiday a plane could crash into my apartment. I don't have absolute knowledge of future events.

The eye is an example to "test" the notion as to whether God is omnipotant. A perfect person/entity means that everything he/she/it does is perfect. They would never make mistakes in mathematics tests, they would throw a perfect game striking out every batter on 3 pitches, they would write perfectly and everything they design would be "perfect." Including the human eyeball and interface to the brain.

The human eye is often used by Christians to illustrate this "perfection of design" and used as "evidence" that God must be the creator. I genuinely apologise if you were unaware that the human eye is trotted out a "proof" of intelligent design on virtually every debate on religion. Perfection creates perfection. Now if we want to say God is not "perfect" well I could get on board somewhat - but the problem is the religious people don't accept or entertain the possibility. And then there is the Duck Billed Platipus!

We have been discussing religion - the eye discussion is pretty central to that. I understand I won't convince you not to have religious faith but I wonder why you are so loathe to even read about dissenting viewpoints. You started this entire thing attacking me for not believing in God and not to me but to Frenchmon. I know you like to keep attacking me calling me an idiot every post but I have presented sound loigic and scientific reasons and you've not once considered them - or even read anything on why people don;t believe and why it's not a real good reason to.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Man you are long winded saying nothing.

Once agauin you have it mostly wrong.

There is not a hairsbreath difference between faith (or reasonable expectation) in any of the things you just mentioned versus faith in God. People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.

If that is what they want to believe, then what business is that of yours? You are showing yourself to be a narrow minded judgemental prick. If you don't believe, and they do, then the discussion is over. There is no point in getting into a discussion on this issue when two polar opposites are involved. You are not going to change their minds, and they are not going to change yours - discussion over. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

No one has proof this is how the universe was created, it is a theory they happen to think is correct. Scientist have faith in that theory. What you don't seem to get is faith by definition has a pretty multifauceted meaning. But faith is faith nevertheless.

No one has that same level of expectation of their buddy Joe meeting them at Starbucks at 6pm because he said so and is usually always on time. Science types will make the adjustments.

And so would anyone with any common sense.

A person having Faith that flying themselves into buildings because it's the word of their God so they can go to heaven and get 72 virgins is just slightly different than me hiring Fred the accountant with the expectation and I suppose "faith" that Fred will turn the work in when he says he will. This usage of the term faith is not remotely the same as religious "Faith" and that is because if you ask me whether I am 100% sure Fred will absolutely without question and without doubt hand in the work when he says I will say No.

This is not called faith, it is fanaticism - big difference. And sorry, but you are talking about situational faith, but it is still faith. You are parsing the meaning, and the definition is pretty clear whether you like it or not.

That's the key difference - doubt. I am reasonably sure I will wake up tomorrow but I am not 100% of this. A spider could come in and bite me - my heart could take a holiday a plane could crash into my apartment. I don't have absolute knowledge of future events.

This is faith no matter how you slice it. Once again, read the definition of faith that I posted. There is five pieces to it, not just one.

The eye is an example to "test" the notion as to whether God is omnipotant. A perfect person/entity means that everything he/she/it does is perfect. They would never make mistakes in mathematics tests, they would throw a perfect game striking out every batter on 3 pitches, they would write perfectly and everything they design would be "perfect." Including the human eyeball and interface to the brain.

The human eye is often used by Christians to illustrate this "perfection of design" and used as "evidence" that God must be the creator. I genuinely apologise if you were unaware that the human eye is trotted out a "proof" of intelligent design on virtually every debate on religion. Perfection creates perfection. Now if we want to say God is not "perfect" well I could get on board somewhat - but the problem is the religious people don't accept or entertain the possibility. And then there is the Duck Billed Platipus!

Can you walk straight? Can you run straight? Can you drive straight? Can you see 7 million colors? Can you recognize black from white? Can you see a predator if it is not hidden? Can you aim? If all this is a yes, then the eyes that we come with serve their purpose. They do not have to be perfect for man to survive, so you point is just a mere sidetrack to the original context of this post.

We have been discussing religion - the eye discussion is pretty central to that.[/quote]

No it is not, and that is best illustrated by the fact it was not mentioned earlier in the discussion. You are just mudding the issue PERIOD.

I understand I won't convince you not to have religious faith but I wonder why you are so loathe to even read about dissenting viewpoints.

Richard, what makes you think I have not already?. Do you know me personally? Have you ever lived with me? You are making an assumptions. Do you really believe this is the first time I have ever discussed this topic? If so, then you have a brain of a tsetse fly. I have had plenty of these discussion with athiests, and it goes nowhere....absolutely nowhere. This is why I will not bother with it, or waste my time - IT GOES NOWHERE.

You started this entire thing attacking me for not believing in God and not to me but to Frenchmon. I know you like to keep attacking me calling me an idiot every post but I have presented sound loigic and scientific reasons and you've not once considered them - or even read anything on why people don;t believe and why it's not a real good reason to.

Read what I said again. I told Frenchmon he is wasting his time talking with you on this issue, and I am right about it. Frenchmon is a believer in God, you are not. So why should he waste his time talking with a brickwall on this issue. Richard, you are too damn emotional for your own good.

You presented some off topic science, and your personal opinion. That is it. If you think you have contributed sound logic, then you are a legend in your own mind. It is not sound logic to spend your time disparaging what you don't believe in. That is idiocracy - hence why you get called an idiot.

You are still making assumption. I have heard many reasons why people don't believe in God. I have also heard many reasons why people do, and it has nothing to do with them being weak and incapable of coping with life.

You make so many assumptions it is pitiful. You don't know me PERIOD, and logically you have to recognize this.

You are just another person with another opinion. Like a$$e$ we all have them. Somebody's 100% belief is just as valid as your 100% disbelief. You are not all knowing, and neither is science.

[RGA]

If that is what they want to believe, then what business is that of yours?

Because what they "believe" impacts everyone and gets the likes of Bush elected. In other words people often die for their beliefs. If they want to die for them fine by me - but they also tend to take people with them. That's not judgment that's historical fact.

You are showing yourself to be a narrow minded judgemental prick. If you don't believe, and they do, then the discussion is over. There is no point in getting into a discussion on this issue when two polar opposites are involved. You are not going to change their minds, and they are not going to change yours - discussion over. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Most Atheists began as Catholics, Christians etc. Just this past Sunday evening I met an "ex" Catholic. It would seem it is very possible to be a polar opposite and then come around to something when looked upon a different way. In your case and Frenchmon's etc that will never be the case - I get that.

Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.

Faith is not faith. Scientific faith or "reasonable expectation" means that they are 100% willing to drop that placeholder theory when new evidence comes along and knocks it down. Religious faith is an entirely different animal. When confronted with 100% undeniable fact these people ignore it completely and believe whatever they want to believe. Which is fine by me but some country usually gets bombed because of it.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Once again it is a questionable of reasonableness. For something to be held as significant theory in science it always has a tremendous amount of evidence (discovered through tests) to verify that it would be highly improbable and unlikely for the theory not to be true. That is different than saying "I have faith that it is true."

No one has proof this is how the universe was created, it is a theory they happen to think is correct. Scientist have faith in that theory. What you don't seem to get is faith by definition has a pretty multifauceted meaning. But faith is faith nevertheless.

I have been the one telling you that faith means different things - you just said it is multifaceted and then say it's all the same. It's not. Religious Faith implies belief beyond any doubt (based on ZERO evidence, ZERO facts) - scientists do not say the Big Bang Theory is absolute. They have numerous tests in physics, astronomy, mathematics that heavily point to this theory(and variations of it) being true. I personally am not up on the Big Bang but I know that it wasn't without problems. Interestingly it was a Belgian Priest who first came out with the theory of the Big Bang. There is also a difference between the Big Bang Theory and the cause of it. Science doesn't even attempt to answer the latter. A religious person could argue (and has argued) that God snapped his fingers (that would be a helluva bang) and thus began the Universe.

This is not called faith, it is fanaticism - big difference. And sorry, but you are talking about situational faith, but it is still faith. You are parsing the meaning, and the definition is pretty clear whether you like it or not.

I understand what you're saying - I am not lumping you in with people who go out shooting abortion doctors or blowing buildings up. But there are a lot of easily persuadable people out there who attend the Ted Haggert's and Jerry Falwell's of the world in football stadium sized numbers. People who send the "message" to lynch homosexuals or that Louisiana got what they deserved for being subversive etc. Sure the Westboro guys are written off as fanatical nuts (even buy Fox News) but Falwell is revered by them as a National Hero. And sure you and I may both agree that Fox is batcrap crazy but the last I checked they have the highest ratings for news in the U.S. So I am not sure you are in the majority. The fanatical parts of the religions seem to be in charge.

Can you walk straight? Can you run straight? Can you drive straight? Can you see 7 million colors? Can you recognize black from white? Can you see a predator if it is not hidden? Can you aim? If all this is a yes, then the eyes that we come with serve their purpose. They do not have to be perfect for man to survive, so you point is just a mere sidetrack to the original context of this post.

The eye has "evolved" and adapted based on the needs of the animal's environment. As I said the eye is adequate for human purposes to ensure the survival of our species. But it suffers a host of unnecessary problems. Had a human top flight optical engineer sat down and was given the power to be all powerful and could create exactly what he wanted for the eye brain interface the human eye would laughed off the drawing board.

And that's just a man. If an all powerful being who is perfect in every way creates something his creation would be perfect. That means there would be no gross blind spots, there would be none of this 7 year olds having to wear glasses because they fail badly so soon. Or lousy night vision etc.

No it is not, and that is best illustrated by the fact it was not mentioned earlier in the discussion. You are just mudding the issue PERIOD.

But it is because the argument is that there are no tests for a Perfect God. Using basic logic is not muddying the issue - it IS the issue. Now if you want to make the case that God is not perfect then that's something else entirely and yes the eye would not be central. God's not perfect and he made the eyeball at midnight on the 6th day and He was tired then great. Of course the problem then becomes - if he is not perfect and always right then it's possible he screwed up other things too. The slippery slop people don't want to go down.

Richard, what makes you think I have not already?. Do you know me personally? Have you ever lived with me? You are making an assumptions. Do you really believe this is the first time I have ever discussed this topic?

Actually I didn't make an assumption and that's kind of the point. You did not provide one argument to me that you have made such arguments in the past. Nor did you say that you did. So I did not assume that you have been in big religious debates. Over the last say 7 years Richard Dawkins has been pretty outspoken on this subject and since you didn't seem to know who he was mixing him up with a Hawking a scientist in a completely different field" you gave me no indication whatsoever that you have been in these debates previously. It would have been erroneous of me based on this to assume that you had engaged in the discussion.

I have had plenty of these discussion with athiests, and it goes nowhere....absolutely nowhere. This is why I will not bother with it, or waste my time - IT GOES NOWHERE.

Fair enough.

Read what I said again. I told Frenchmon he is wasting his time talking with you on this issue, and I am right about it. Frenchmon is a believer in God, you are not. So why should he waste his time talking with a brickwall on this issue. Richard, you are too damn emotional for your own good.

I am not posting from emotion - I outlined logical problems with Sky-God belief systems. You choose to read and think and apply reason or you choose not to. You've told me your decision. No problems

You presented some off topic science, and your personal opinion. That is it. If you think you have contributed sound logic, then you are a legend in your own mind. It is not sound logic to spend your time disparaging what you don't believe in. That is idiocracy - hence why you get called an idiot.

It's called educating people to look at one thing versus another and understand why one thing makes more sense than another. One clearly does and the other clearly does not. Critical thinking on religion is uncomfortable and I can understand that reducing ignorance and increasing people's knowledge and increase their ability to examine and think for themselves is my day job. That doesn't stop when I walk out of the classroom.

You are still making assumption. I have heard many reasons why people don't believe in God. I have also heard many reasons why people do, and it has nothing to do with them being weak and incapable of coping with life.

Not at all - there is lots of money to be made in religion. You can indeed be very successful and cope quite well with religion.

You are just another person with another opinion. Like a$$e$ we all have them. Somebody's 100% belief is just as valid as your 100% disbelief. You are not all knowing, and neither is science.

Science doesn't claim to be all knowing - Religious people however do claim to be all knowing - they KNOW God made the earth, is omnipotent and omniscient. They know what happens to them when they die, they know what will happen to RGA when he dies, they KNOW it absolutely.