zapatos

That's one of the biggest untruths we've seen yet in this thread. You're now arguing that people who believe in god equally aren't asserting that god(s) actually exist, just that they think it's likely? That's laughable, at best. Ignorant and disingenuous, at worst. Isn't immortal's statement basically the definition of the agnostic theist?

So in other words, you feel it is morally right to dictate to someone that they not be allowed to dictate morality to someone else...

I can say without hesitation, knowing that my wife will never see this post, that marrying my wife was far and away the smartest thing I've ever done.

In person I am much more likely to walk away from conflict. I've done it here some too but not nearly as much. If someone starts to get hostile or loud during discussions I'll often just disconnect and move on. Life is too short. The angrier I get, the less you hear from me. What you see of me here is just what I'm like in person. Although in person I am much better looking.

Unless you are applying to a place that is 'young and hip', I'd have to go with a suit and tie. If it is 'young and hip' then I have no idea. You will be current if you are buying now because current is what they are selling now. Buy it from some place that sells suits for a living and let them guide you on what to buy. After all, making you look good is what they do for a living. I'd lean toward more conservative as it is a lot harder to screw up on the conservative side that it is on the liberal side. Best of luck!

Other than the fact that I'm uncomfortable calling someone 'broken' when we really haven't defined what that means, I completely agree with this statement. Although just to be fair I guess we have to exclude those who are immature or insufficiently educated. Given that the existence of God is outside the realm of science, would you say that people who know without doubt that God exists fall into the category of broken? And could the same be said for those who know without doubt that God does not exist?

I thought the following was an interesting article. Looks like an Indian company sees profit to be had in reaching out to America's underinsured. http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ascension-health-plans-billion-cayman-health-city-project/article_cbe07d56-8d91-11e1-85c9-001a4bcf6878.html

I believe that employers do have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

No problem. There was post 101 and you are probably remembering an outburst I had in a different thread. Regardless, I'll still make an effort to double check myself before posting. Also, I kind of liked the Christopher Hitchens video. Takes brass to put yourself out there like that.

Ok. I'm willing to take a critical look at myself here. I reread the thread and could not find what you are talking about, but it is certainly possible that I am coming across poorly and just don't recognize it. If you would be so kind as to point out the precise places I was being very emotive when interacting with others in this thread, I would appreciate it, and will make an effort to improve. No bullshit, no sarcasm, just an honest request for further detail.

Interesting you should say this. Even as I was drifting to atheism I sent both of my sons to 12 years of Catholic school. I never encouraged them to 'be Catholic' but I wanted a partner in teaching my kids morals and integrity, which I got from Catholic school. Just as I'd expected. As an aside, while my sons may not have finished their thoughts on the subject, if I had to classify them I'd say they are both atheist.

Are you sure that isn't you? Yes, I know it was in direct response to DrDNA. But I don't understand your point. I was commenting on what you said. What does the fact that you were responding to DrDNA have to do with it? How does that make my response to your words invalid or whatever it is you are trying to tell me? Now this I just find funny, because I was trying very hard to have my closing match your closing. Did you notice I wasn't 'vitriolic and emotional' until you started talking to me? You said '...if you were paying more attention...', so I said '...if you would have bothered to read my post...' You said '...if you were more intellectually honest...', so I said '...one giant strawman...'. I generally go with the flow. If you won't comment about my attention span then I won't comment about your commitment to reading. Deal?

Correct, this is not a dichotomy. There are plenty in all camps. My point was that scientists look at evidence differently than non-scientists. Most theists are not scientists, and many, if not most, scientists are not theists. It was an easy breakdown but I didn't mean to imply that no scientists are theists. Of course they have less demanding rules of evidence. Read any post from a newbie who is not a scientist. Read what Christians have to say about evolution. The average person off the street coming onto this site is given a lecture on 'evidence' and supporting their claims before they get through their first day. Then why are they forever mentioning miracles, matches between the bible and science, complex life, etc. No, I was pretty much directly going after what you had said: If you would have bothered to read my post before starting your lecture, you would have realized that I never said faith was an acceptable reason to accept something as valid, that I was not trying to convince you otherwise, and that I never said you were not right to disregard it as irrelevant. My whole post was about attacks on the bible. You are just presenting one giant strawman. If you don't want it discussed, don't end your post with 'Discuss'.

The post I believe you are referring to is #23. The whole point of the post was shades of gray when it comes to evidence; that belief in the Big Bang and belief in God are similar in that both sides find a level of evidence that is acceptable to them. It did not say the evidence was comparable. I believe scientists require a higher level of evidence in general to support their beliefs than theists do, but everyone is flexible on their standards. If you believe in God, then what happened at Fatima is probably acceptable evidence. If you believe dark energy is real, then an accelerating universe is evidence of that. There is plenty of evidence for God. It is no surprise however that for many (most?) scientists that evidence is completely unacceptable. It is relatively weak and supports a theory that is unfalsifiable. It is also no surprise that for most theists the evidence is acceptable. They are typically not coming from a scientific background or a belief system with such demanding rules of evidence.

In my 12 years of Catholic school I was never once asked to read the bible. We were given bible stories to read and were of course told stories from the bible. We were told what Jesus was about, how we should behave and what could happen if we didn't. To me, and I imagine to those around me, being a Catholic was not about the details in the bible, it was about what we were taught. What we were taught was based on what was in the bible, but I was usually told that the bible was mostly made up of stories meant to convey concepts. I think one of the reasons many Christians are so reluctant to rethink their faith when shown the flaws in the bible is because for the most part they don't take the bible literally. I never did and was never asked to. The ark couldn't possibly have held two of each species? So what? It's only a story. I think you overestimate the importance of the bible to peoples' faith. Attacking the bible is not the same as attacking their faith. If you show the bible to be flawed you have not shown their faith to be flawed. Just because the Constitution says some people are only "three fifths of all other Persons" does not stop people from believing in the Constitution or America. Being an American is much more than just the document we were founded upon. Being a Christian is much more than the bible.

I like those. And along those lines maybe one of your ships is sent out ahead, possibly with a crew, and begins growing and harvesting crops for food and other purposes. And of course any research done when close to the new home is going to be much more detailed and informative than research done from earth.

Well, we do risk management on all of that. For example, spread the fleet out more. Supplies don't have to be 1 hour away. If we are worried about, say, an explosion, maybe we put supplies one day, or one week away. Mismanaging our supplies can occur whether they are close by or far away. Well personally I believe that once they leave they are gone for good. We have to plan for them having the supplies and know how to care of themselves. When Columbus sailed it was do or die. However, I never objected to supplies being sent after leaving. If you want that as part of your disaster planning I can see that being an option.

Because it is included in your plan. I'm just changing the timing of the launches.

No, that hasn't always been your point. They are your contingencies, they are your backups, they are your redundancies, they are your supplies. I don't have a separate plan from yours. All I am suggesting is a modification to your plan. Anything you launch early, you instead launch at the same time the people launch. The only difference I am suggesting is that instead of placing things far away from you, you instead have those things close to you.

I swear I think you are not reading what I am writing. What would be better, to have an emergency duplicate spacecraft positioned 100,000 miles away, or to have an emergency duplicate spacecraft positioned 1 mile away?

No, you are still misunderstanding me. I want exactly the same number of backup contingency plans that you want. I want multiple alternate options just like you. I want two baskets, just like you. The only difference in our plans is the distance between the people and the baskets. I want the baskets to be close by. You want the baskets to be far away. If it turns out due to some unforseen circumstance that I need something in one of the baskets, I can get to it quickly. If it turns out due to some unforseen circumstance that you need something in one of the baskets, you are going to have to wait 100 years for it.

So do you think your way would be better because ultimately, you would have even more supplies available to you than I would?

In what way do you think I am arguing against your idea of redundancy?

With all due respect in return, I think you are missing my point. I am suggesting that anything you may have pre-positioned, you instead take with you. Any redundancy is with you instead of somewhere ahead of you. There is no limit to how much I can take with me. Anything you would have sent out early, I would send out at the same time the people left. Any supply that you can get to in 100 years, 200 years, or 1000 years, I can lay my hands on today. They left them behind because they could not possibly take the supplies with them. They had a limited carrying capacity. You don't have that same limit in space. How many explorers died because they couldn't get back to their pre-positioned supplies in time? If the supplies had been with them they would have survived.

No, the fuel consumption will be the same. Let's say we send out the supply vessel now at 0.1c. It will take x amount of fuel to get it to that velocity. Later on we send out the people at 0.2c. For simplicity let's say it takes an amount of fuel equal to 2x. When the people overcome the supply ship, in order to get the supplies, they need the supply ship to be going the same speed as the people. So they speed up the supply ship to 0.2c from 0.1c, using an amount of fuel equal to x. That is 2x in fuel the supply ship has now used. They could have used that exact same 2x in fuel to leave at the same time the people did, and cruised along at the same velocity. Therefore there is no difference in fuel consumption. Well, you only mentioned one (the fuel). What is the other? But you said "Sending supply ships out years and years ahead of the actual manned missions has to be looked at as an investment in the future survival of humanity." You can't argue that both sides of the socio-economics issue support your argument. Also, why is it 'doubtful' that we can store it without grumblings, but ok with the population if we send it? Is the socio-economic issue what you had in mind all along when you said we should send out supply ships ahead of time? Just wondering because this is the first time you brought it up. Actually this is an argument in favor of taking all of the supplies with you instead of sending them out ahead of time. You have the same amount of supplies either way, and will consume the same amount either way. If the journey gets sidetracked or takes longer than expected or consumes resources faster than expected while at a dangerous mid-point between stars, you are going to be glad you have the extra supplies with you, rather than hoping that you don't starve to death before you reach the extra supplies that are at the pre-positioned supply points. Exactly the opposite is true. If the food is with you then you can eat it and arrive alive. If the food is not with you and you mis-calculated, that is when you're dead before you even get there. And to quote a very wise person: