doG

To put it simply the "we" of the phrase, "In God We Trust", does not include me and it offends me for my currency to say so. Further, the first amendment protects my freedom of religion, or from it as the case may be, and the declaration by my government that any god exists is a violation of my 1st amendment rights. It was after all an act of Congress that permitted this in the first place and such acts are specifically prohibited by the 1st amendment.

I don't see "In God We Trust" as a promise or the fiat currency of the U.S. as a promissory note, a term normally reserved for written instruments of promise. Neither of these is a viable excuse that the currency needs to say anything more than it did when it was blank.

No need to replace it, just leave it blank. That would seem the secular thing to do.

No, I don't know of any.specifically. By definition theism is defined as an affirmative belief that.one or more deities exist. To suggest that anyone is born with such a.belief is as much an illogical hypothesis ad suggesting that people are.born with a belief in tooth fairies, leprechauns or unicorns. Do you think it possible that people are born with such conclusions?

Yes, I disagree. The term atheist simply means quite literally not-theist, nothing more, nothing less. It is the natural position since people are not born as theists but taught to be theists. They should be the skeptics and ask why they should believe in any deity when there is ZERO to support such a belief or conclusion of deities as the cause of anything.

Huh? I feel it every time I stand up, climb the stairs, climb a mountain, etc.. Where is the weightlessness you speak of on Earth?

Sure are. Science theorizes that maybe it happened this way, maybe that way, maybe another. It doesn't claim any of them to be an irrefutable fact the way religion does. Science doesn't do that until there is supporting proof, religion doesn't care about proof. For science, proof is an unavoidable obstacle, for religion it is nothing more than an annoyance that interferes with faith.

Basically you've written some algorithm that generates a pretty picture and you want to know if it coincidentally matches the field structure of some known natural phenomena. Good luck!

Food for thought: Is Samuel alive or not?

Again, religion is about beliefs regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of beliefs. How exactly did the universe come to be? Science says we don't know and is comfortable with that answer. Religion is not comfortable with that answer so it simply makes one up and then believes in it.

define god...

And to think....that verse predates Christmas trees by more than a millennia and yet the Christians ignored it and started their contradictory tradition in spite of it.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cone.html Your integration is about 1/2 way down the page.

With a large enough base any analog system could ultimately be described as digital. People tend to think of digital systems being limited to base 2 or binary but in reality you could have a googol of discrete states in a system and it would be a digital system even if it appeared to be analog. I tend to think reality is ultimately analog, that it is more continuous than could be represented with even a googolplex of discrete values.

To further clarify, the software here would let you give one person multiple negative reps if the limit were increased but it would still be limited to one negative rep per post that person had made, i.e. you couldn't give multiple negative reps to a single flame or arrogant answer even it it was warranted.

Your manner of writing psychology/psychiatry gives the impression that these are interchangeable terms when they are not. Psychiatrists are medical doctors practicing medicine in the treatment of mental disorders, many of which are treated medicinally for things like chemical imbalances. It is a science of medicine like any other branch of medicine. The scientific method is utilized in this field the same as in other branches of medical practice. Psychology is argumentatively a science since it does not rigorously adhere to the scientific method but it is a valid attempt to apply scientific study to behavior and cognitive ability. I could see it as a soft science.

I doubt it. I frequently criticize it's flaws in design and the suffering of humans to theists and don't experience any suffering for it myself.

As long as there are people that will die for religion then religion will not die. There will always be those that can't think for themselves, those that simply believe what they are told. For them, religion will never die.

I think a better question is to ask why Christians chose a symbol of a most horrific torture method as their religious symbol. Does Christianity advocate torture?

Affirmative action is as much discrimination as the discrimination it is intended to circumvent. Two wrongs do not make a right. Seats should go to the most qualified applicants regardless of class, race, gender, etc..

Links?

I'm well aware of my personal experience but that has nothing to do with your assertion that 10-30 minutes of daytime sleep is equal to 3 hours of nighttime sleep. If you are going to make such a statement as fact here then you need to support it.

Can you support that with anything other than you-say-so? Please show us the math and the proof that it proves what you say.

Can you support that assertion with evidence?