losfomot

If they break the contaminated water into Hydrogen and Oxygen (for example, by electrolysis)... would those gases be contaminated?

Because I can't accept your exceedingly unlikely idea of an individual called 'God' as an infallible truth... I am closed minded? I accept the possibility of such a being... hell, anything's possible... even an ocean controlling leprechaun. I think I am quite open minded actually. 'Closed minded'-ness to me is someone who 'believes' in one thing (an omnipotent, omnipresent God, for example) to the exclusion of any other possibility.

What do you mean by 'disbelieving in a truth'? Can you give me an example? I still think the problem is in the definition... for example: Your best friend says to you "John, I don't know how it happened, and I know it sounds crazy, but there is an elephant in my garden... I need your help... you gotta believe me!" and you grab him by the shoulders and shake him... maybe give him a slap and say "ok, I believe you... calm down and lets go check it out... and my names not John!" And maybe you do believe him... but really what you mean by believe is that you think it is possible, and you are going give him the benefit of the doubt and proceed on the assumption that he is telling the truth even though you know very well that there could be (and probably is) something else going on here. In other words, you don't truly believe. You don't truly disbelieve either. However, followers of God do believe... at least they will tell you they do... and they are not supposed to be saved if they don't truly believe. This kind of belief is what I am talking about. Yes, you have a choice to believe that your friend is lying or telling the truth, but it is not true belief. You will not drop to your knees, hold your head and say 'I don't understand' when you walk into the garden and there is no elephant after all.

Sure... but if you were to test that theory, in this specific case (believing in god), by asking the believers what they actually mean when they say, for example, 'I believe.... that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour'... I think you will get a similar definition from all (or at least most) of them. Sure... but that is different from willfully believing in something. I might be willfully ignorant about where meat comes from, or rather how it gets from there to my plate... but I do not willfully believe that meat grows from a tree.

How can one 'choose' to believe? In all honesty, I would probably jump on the chance to really believe in a god... saviour... heaven and hell... afterlife... heck, everlasting life! What a deal! Sign me up! But it just doesn't work that way... does it? You can't just decide one day that you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour... your God. You can't just 'choose to believe'. What it comes down to for me (i think) is the word believe (or belief). Someone who says that they believe, means that they hold this thing to be the truth... there is no halfway... there is no 'level' or extent of belief... there is no scale from 1 to ten how much you believe... there is simply 'I believe' or 'I don't believe'. 'Believe', to me, is a strong word... the strongest, especially when used in this context... and I just don't see how this is something someone can 'choose' to do. There are some people who 'believe' in the possibility or even probability that there is a God (even a specific God)... does that make them believers?... I don't think so. Am I wrong about this?

Different extents? Care to test that definition with a religious person? -Excuse me sir, I notice you are a christian... how much do you believe in christianity? -Pardon me?.. How much? What do you mean? -I mean do you believe a little?... or a lot?.. To what extent do you believe? -I don't really know what you mean... I simply believe. -No, no... humour me here... on a scale from 1 to 10... rate your belief level. -I would have to say 10... if it was any less, it wouldn't be belief now would it? For example... I asked 'A Tripolation' (earlier in this thread) what he thought the word 'belief' meant... I agree. I agree. However, this should be done before stating that they 'believe'. Questioning their beliefs after the fact is akin to not believing. If you are investigating the truth of your religion... well then it can't really be a 'belief' can it? Your obviously not sure about it. A 'possibility' maybe. It could be true, but maybe not.

merely beliefs? A belief cannot be merely. If you believe something, that means it is the rock solid truth. There is no accepting there may be flaws or being open to new ideas. You either believe in something or you don't. Saying... is like saying people should be agnostic... or atheist.

White blood cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_field_entoptic_phenomenon Makes sense to me.

I do not believe the question is answerable, as it is impossible to have a negative atmospheres (or am I wrong). Perhaps you meant that the sphere is capable of holding a vacuum of 0.01 atmospheres rather than -10 atmospheres? And that it is then evacuated to 0.02 atmospheres? If so, I believe the answer is that the sphere will drop 10 cm before imploding. As for the size of the bubble being released, do you mean when the sphere implodes? Or when the bubble reaches the surface? Either would be less than the 1' diameter that the sphere was.

It is attractive to animals. Animals eat the fruit, and then poop it out. The seeds have now been transported to a new location where it has ample fertilizer and new ground to take root in. Also... if the fruit simply drops to the ground without being eaten by an animal... it is ideally shaped to roll away from the tree (on a slope for example) where it will eventually rot, thereby providing additional nutrients for the seeds.

Ringer makes some great points... I'd love to hear a response from GX.

I do not mean to offend, but.... I only know you through this thread and it's parent, but you don't seem logical, rational or caring to me. You have not shown any evidence of the assertions you have made on this thread despite repeated requests... so I highly doubt you've shown your friend any evidence either. He is not being cruel, just honest and probably frustrated that you keep bringing up a topic and a viewpoint that he disagrees with, and doesn't care about.

This seems all quite off-topic but... In all honesty, it sounds like you are jealous that he is giving his attention to girls rather than you. It is possible that his frustrations arise as a result of your attitude. I don't know how bad your condition affects you, but I imagine it could be quite challenging to maintain a friendship with you. It sounds like he may be saying this just to get under your skin. Whatta jerk. If you had some evidence, you could prove him wrong and change his mind. It may be a stereotype, but I disagree that it is irrational. In my experience, a man acting 'unmasculine' or 'effeminate' is usually gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Yes, or find a new friend. This sounds exactly like the terrible and abusive relationships you are trying to avoid by staying single... Except you aren't gettin any. You've chosen to experience (or at least focus on) all the negative parts of a relationship while denying yourself the good parts. Take a chance, my friend.

It sounds like your friend had a unique experience growing up, quite outside the average experience. It certainly puts him at the extreme end of all the points you've been making. And yet he got married/(or girlfriended). I will venture a guess that he will soon find peace with the girl he is with, or another girl to hang out with (despite your warnings) and you will stop hearing him complain... unless and until that relationship breaks up as well. Regardless, the point is, your friend is an extreme example of all the points you have been making, and he didn't end up being a woman hating rapist/murderer. (sorry, this relates more to the parent thread here) As for your personal choice to stay single and childless... it's probably for the best.

I will try not to attempt to tell you that. Please don't take offense. I am just trying to understand. If you really feel that way, then don't reply. I wouldn't say it is purely subjective. Can you expand on it a little for me?... The fact that you would be 'terribly sad if this is all there was' is simply not a justification for believing in a God... never mind a particular one. There must be more to it. Were you raised as a christian? Did someone influential to you introduce you to the bible? Or did you just come across it one day and decide, all on your own, 'wow! this is such an amazing story, it must be true!' Plausible is a long stretch from belief... a long stretch. And your belief is specific to Jesus Christ, not "an entity that is so far beyond us that "God" would be an applicable term". Perhaps it is the word 'belief' that is subjective to you. What does it mean to you?