Leaderboard

Thanks for the clarification. All of the above were in my post. Care to clarify what you're asking as the question is not clear to me. If the question relates to whether introspection would lead me to understand why a Christian has different beliefs to me: a) I've never in my life demanded a Christian justify their beliefs as I strongly support the right to spiritual self determination. Their justification for belief is up to them personally and I don't have a role to play in their rationale. b) The beliefs of others are therefore not my business insofar as they do not impact me or others. I honestly don't really think about the justifications of others for beliefs I don't share - they are welcome to any justification they like, at least until they try and force their beliefs and values on others whom don't share them. c) I'm always open about the rationale for my lack of belief if someone is interested, but I'd never engage on the topic with a party not actively inquiring and interested. Hope that answers the question.

No I think he is right.Unless we all accept that we will all be losers (and painfully mutilated and sickly losers in the event of a full scale -or less than full scale nuclear war) then the likelihood of that happening increases. Those who stock up and invest in their bunkers are indirectly dooming those who do not. Politicians and generals in charge of these decisions have to prepare for their own survival or the credibility of their threat will be diminished but they really have as much prospects as Hitler in his bunker if such a war is fought. Those investing in post apocalyptic survival are really just taking a random Hobson's choice Far better to invest in politicians who will not lead us down this path in the first place.

Peterkin put a colon before listing the incorrect assumptions. I missed it the first couple of times I read it, too. This is the first time I think I've heard the argument that God purposely made flawed humans with the idea of using evolution as a mechanism to fix them eventually. What a mysterious way to create something!

Because the water is much more dense than the steam. In other words there are many more high temperature molecules in contact with your skin in water than in steam, therefore much more heat is transferred to your skin from the water.

If you are making alcohol for drinking, you certainly don't need vacuum distillation- not bothering to add the most expensive and unnecessary bit makes things cheaper. (Buying a 3d printer etc is unlikely to make things cheaper) If you are making high purity alcohol for lab use then... you still don't need a vacuum still.

Let's try a rephrasing without the term "atheist/atheism" to capture the original point: "Most people don't believe in most versions of God. A Christian doesn't believe in Brahma, and a Hindu doesn't believe in Yahweh. An non-believer doesn't believe in either. Many of the demands, predominately made by Christians at least in Western countries for non-believers to justify their non-belief in Christianity might be answered by introspection by the Christians on why they don't believe other faiths." I recently went through this with a relative at a wedding who was (after many tequilas) pressing me on my lack of belief. When I asked why he wasn't Buddhist he was actually reasonably taken aback, but then fell into the circular logic that Buddhism wasn't in the Bible, and the Bible was the word of God, so that was why. (circular because the bible is the proof of the Christian God, and the reason it is proof is be cause it is the word of God, etc.). But at least it did get him to think, and maybe a bit more tolerant of other systems of belief, including atheism.

That's applied in a sociological study, not to God but to humans. I don't think you have even understood what you yourself are saying. Imagining an unimaginable God is an objective statement, not a subjective perspective of God. And this comes from natural theology applied through thousands of years. You are just not aware of it. Even if human beings have their subjective interpretations of God, that does not mean God cannot exist as unimaginable. These two are two separate subjects altogether. One is based on study of sociology, and the other is philosophical. So you have to separate the two. Or at least know it.

I'm in a fortunate position and count myself very lucky that the job role is a promotion. If I don't get the position no harm no foul I will remain doing the role I am currently. If i do then it is the last step in furthering my career (I guess). It is definitely you, in what way whatso ever is it religious, sounds religious, derides religion...? I was being honest, should I lie? Yes, I am human, or at least I believe I am, you never know (I have often being accused of being an alien).

Does the distance really exist, or is it a measurement we use to explain movement?

Correct. It is arbitrary and subject to change over time. So perhaps you can try to understand how people are using it and stop trying to hold everyone to YOUR arbitrary definition.

Tit for tat always feels good, which is why we'd all like to see it. Fortunately cooler heads prevail. Just as not sending that email when you are angry is always the better idea, not responding in a tit for tat manner is also the better idea. Whether or not attacks inside Russia's borders occur will likely be decided based on the overall view of the war at the time, and whether or not it is believed it will lead to the best outcome. At the moment, the people who are best at this type of thinking are saying 'no'. I don't know if they are right but they are in a better position to make the decision than me and I am happy to defer to them. Nukes have kept us out of a war with Russia and the Soviet Union for 75 years. I'd say it's been working well for defense.

What sort of privileged Russian access are you thinking of here?

Does that really matter? If a majority of the people in London decide they want to be an independent country, is their right to do that a 'grey area'? If I decide I want the land my home sits on to revert to Native American control, is anyone going to argue my desires should be taken seriously, and that perhaps my wishes should be allowed?

The center line of the barrel in many guns is above the center of mass of the weapon resulting in the muzzle of the gun to rise.

The title statement is not true. Surely we don't need to exaggerate wrt the things McCarthy has said to make a point.

Ah. Sorry I misunderstood your comment. I have heard this comment made by most atheistic apologists on the internet That's not evidence. That's conjecture. It's like saying "there are many theories on who killed kennedy. So the whole thing must have been invented".

Nice. True. I think you could be a little more humble like Swanston who already answered me and I agree I had misunderstood the first comment. If I later pretend and use logical fallacies over and over again, then you can get worked up like this if you wish. Humble request. So what's your point? One person is atheistic about 99% of Gods? Is that even the meaning or definition of the word atheist? Does atheist mean "rejecting some God or most God's"?

It's a logical argument mate.

What is your evidence that they are all made up?

I'm not familiar with this, thus my question: So that is what happened? The writer said essentially "don't believe what I am about to say as it is not true and only made up"?

Since I grew up Catholic I've been around a lot of believers throughout my life. I've yet to encounter a theist who didn't tweak the 'official' version of god to accommodate their own personal beliefs. "Well, god would make an exception if I was suffering." "I don't believe god would oppose contraception if wearing a condom prevents AIDS." "There is no way god would make someone doing a mercy killing go to the same hell as Hitler." And without fail the change a person finds in god from the 'official' version just happens to be in line with the thoughts of the person suggesting the change. Either an amazing coincidence, or people are making god in their own self image. I've never seen a person change religion from a god whose rules aligned with their own world view to a religion/god whose rules did not match their world view. But I've seen plenty of people move in the opposite direction.

If it so common then why are we having pages of debate about it? No commonly used word means the same thing to all men. (And by 'men' I am not referring to just people with XY chromosomes. It also includes women. Although some say 'women' means what is on your birth certificate and others see it more broadly. But of course not everyone receives a 'birth certificate'. In this sense 'birth certificate' simply means how you were viewed by others at birth. But I fully expect everyone here to only use terms the way that I define them. Because that is how I "commonly" use them.)

How are you going to implement this given that a mind chooses the reference position. It requires magic. I can make space lines with my mind.