ydoaPs

Emphasis mine. False.

Shroud of Turin.....lol You know that is an OBVIOUS forgery, right? Mooeypoo even has a video demonstrating the principle. FFXW1ijmHE4

I'm not sure how you can read that out of her post. She was actually defending the religious. It's most certainly NOT slander, and citations aren't needed for common knowledge. Everyone knows that there are religious groups teaching that condoms are evil in AIDS ridden places. Everyone knows that there are religious groups in Africa teaching that you should kill homosexuals. Everyone knows that there are places where your nose gets cut off by a religious group if you try to escape an abusive relationship. However, we cannot extend such abhorrent behaviour to religious people as a whole; you cannot extrapolate the properties of the general from the particular alone. Extremists do not define the religion. Now, think of how this might relate to the OP. I haven't read this subthread, but I'm not sure he was talking about you specifically. If he wasn't, then he wasn't shifting goalposts. There ARE people that think religion should be taught in science class. There ARE places where only Christians can be elected officials. There are even places where it is illegal to be an atheist! Exactly. You cannot take the properties of the outliers and generalize that as the properties of the group as a whole. Unfortunately, people DO do this. Such things can be seen with the what should be a non-issue of the mosque to be built near Ground Zero.

Fair point.

I don't think this counts as an impasse.

Remind me to never hire you. Going off of wild-assed guesses based on flawed methodology is a TERRIBLE idea.

If that one you named earlier is the one I think you're talking about, you're either deliberately misrepresenting him, or you're mistaken. The paper mentioned is freely available online and says no such thing.

No, he's saying Hoyle got the answer by accident. No scientist ANYWHERE says that life arose by chance alone. No scientist ANYWHERE says that all of the molecules necessary for life popped into existence all at once in the same place. No scientist ANYWHERE says that the first life was the same as what we have now. There's a reason it's called Hoyle's FALLACY.

I'm not sure what that has at all to do with whether or not one or more deities exist.

[20:00] <Gilded> I for one like to adhere to a higher standard of decency [20:00] <Gilded> Some people simply have their minds in the gutter

No, he meant what he meant.

Actually, they are quite well defined and have been for quite some time. From a book written in 1979, Atheism: The Case Against God(by George H Smith): Emphasis in the original. As you can see, Ophiolite's definition of atheism fails quite horribly as it doesn't cover a large chunk of the population of atheists. Those who are not theists are atheists; it's that easy. From the same book: He goes on at length about both, but I'm tired of transcribing, and you get the point. If you would like to continue reading, the book is hard to miss; it's big and purple. These terms are technical terms and have had set definitions for longer than I have even been alive. Honestly, it's even a bit disrespectful to hijack Huxley's word and misrepresent it in such away to present yourself as on neutral objective ground. As my favourite comic character said, "Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth." Words only offer the means to meaning if the meaning is shared. Without shared meaning, communication falls to cacophony. That's why it's so important that we all use the words correctly. I quite doubt you would find my posts to be 'infantile ravings' were I correcting a foaming-at-the-mouth YEC talking about how "evolution is just a 'theory'" rather than you misrepresenting the term Agnostic.

[15:50] <mooeypoo> and just for the record [15:50] <mooeypoo> yee of little faith [15:50] <mooeypoo> I fuckin rock. [15:50] <mooeypoo> peace out.

Care to elaborate?

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/P%3DNP_math_problem_reported_solved?dpl_id=200299 Apparently P≠NP. Thoughts?

Units in which c=1 ?

You could double major, or you could major in physics and minor in philosophy.

[22:00] * AzurePhoenix takes a dose of whatever cappy's on, and flies away on a rainbow bunny

No.

With enough gravity, the heat can't escape. And what about dark matter? I thought it doesn't interact via EM, and as such would be subject to the organization without the generated heat due to friction.

Should freedom of speech extend as far as those deluding populations into pandemic, or are some messages so dangerous that they must be stopped at all costs? Re: "condoms are evil" in AIDS ridden countries

It's quite easy to formulate a god concept which inhabits our universe with us rather than some nebulous meta-universe. In fact, the concept of creation ex-nihilo didn't even exist in original Judaism. The concept of 'supernatural' merely meant things doing things against their nature(like men walking on water). Angels, demons, gods, etc were natural beings living cohabiting our universe. It's not unreasonable to be able to catch one such god in the act. Do you believe that one or more deities exist? If yes, then you're a theist. If anything other than yes, then you're an atheist. These words aren't terribly hard to understand. You would be an Agnostic Weak Atheist. Using words how they mean is bleeping nonsense? ....ok.... Nope. A STRONG ATHEIST believes that there are no gods. I suppose you believe that all theists are Mormons. It's the same thing; your trying to force a particular into a general. That doesn't work. Like theism, atheism comprises more than one group. Theist: One who has a positive belief in the existence of one or more deities. Atheist: One who is not a theist. WEAK Atheist: One who lacks both a positive belief in the existence of any deities and a positive disbelief in the existence of deities("I do not believe God exists" vice "I believe that God does not exist") STRONG Atheist: One who believes that no deities exist. Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know if any deities exist. Ignostic: One who believes that the question of whether or not deities exist is meaningless until there is a coherent consensus definition of the concept of the deity. As I said before, that makes you an atheist. Do you have a positive belief in one or more deities? Well, you just said you didn't. Ergo, you're an atheist. Now you know, and knowledge is power. Have a nice day.

I already explained it quite clearly. Hell, I did it on the first page and on this page.

Get where?

Not all formulations of the deity concept are plagued by the problem of divine hiddeness.