ydoaPs

I was under the impression that most people use the standard digital display. I'm not even sure how to change that setting.

Science is atheistic. It does not contain one or more deities. It doesn't exclude them either, so it is not Strong Atheistic. Strong Atheism isn't the only kind; in fact, it's a bit of a special case.

I find it odd that this guy claims to be an "Anti-Dogmatist" yet he spreads Strong Atheism dogma.

Because it doesn't seem like you've proved anything.

Why would they annihilate if the forces cancel?

There's a BIG morally relevant distinction between most humans and "something like a car." Most humans are people. The question you should ask is, are fetuses people?

HHO? Like H2O?

Lol. You don't know what an atheist is, yet you have the old atheist symbol as your avatar. Theists often caricature atheists as all being strong atheists(similar to an argument that all theists are Mormons) with no moral compass, and thus have given the word a sort of social stigma. It has, in fact been quite successful. One only has to see the abundance of various words atheists will use to describe themselves while dancing around the word "atheist." The core of atheism is just a response to theism. Theists say "One or more deities exist". And atheism is just people saying "I don't believe you." This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, requires just as much faith as theism. All that defines an atheist is that they do not answer "yes" when asked "Do you believe in the existence of one or more deities?". "Agnostic" is a term that is misused as nausium. I suspect that it is mostly due to the social stigma(which is thankfully somewhat receding) that I wrote of above. Agnostic is a modifier of the terms Theist and Atheist, and as such cannot stand on it's own. You either believe in the existence of one or more deities, or you don't; there is no middle ground. Atheism and Theism are the only options. Agnosticism is merely one flavour of the choices. "Agnostic" merely means that one believe that one cannot know whether or not deities exist. Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) or one can be an Agnostic Atheist(lack a belief in deities, but also believe it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist), but one cannot JUST be an Agnostic. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief; you either believe or you lack belief. One cannot give you what you are asking for, as it isn't the same for everyone. Atheists are not grouped by what they believe; they are grouped by what they don't believe. Atheists lack a belief in god(s). That's all you can say about the beliefs of atheists as a group. Individual atheists believe a lot of things. Some are purely naturalistic. Some are New Agers. Some are Utilitarians while others are Libertarians. Some believe in ghosts. Some believe in UFOs. Beyond lacking a belief in the existence of deities, atheists are diverse in what they believe.

You know Bush has the launch codes, right?

Here is AiG's review of the program. I almost stopped reading after they claim ID and creationism aren't the same thing. Apparently, they missed the "cdesign proponentsts" bit. It is somewhat amusing how they complain about the use of Tiktaalik as though they didn't explicitly say multiple times that the fossil was uncovered after the trial. I guess they missed the part about the telomere in the centre of chromosome 2.

I read it ages ago. I thought he was just a pop-writer. I didn't know he wrote technical papers.

Didn't Krauss write The Physics of Star Trek?

FREE THE CHUCK WEST ONE

This thread is the fourth result on google under "nuclear hoax." Apparently, we aren't the only ones. Much of it is verbatim.

I'm not sure there is a meaningful answer for religion in general. After all, some religions are a great source for inspiration with almost no negative consequences in the real world and others teach objectively terrible thing. Then there is a whole host of religions filling the spectrum between. Here is a good blog entry on the subject.

What does this question have to do with massless particles?

I wonder how many times he must be told this before he listens.

There is both an attraction and a repulsion. They are two separate effects. They may be competing effects, but the attraction is still there; it is just countered by the repulsion.

It depends how you set up your frame of reference. Remember that force is a vector, so it has both a magnitude and a direction.

The subjectiveness of human perception of truth does not necessitate subjectiveness of truth itself. There can be absolute truth. The statement "an attraction exists between all massive objects" is absolute truth.

I can't help but be reminded by the abortion debate by this thread(and by the looks of the beginning of the OP, it seems that's where the question originated). I don't see why the question always comes up in the abortion debate. It is irrelevant; life in and of itself is not a morally relevant concept.

There is no logical way in which the statement "There is no truth" can be true. If we assume that the statement is true, then by virtue of being true, the statement is false. If we assume it is false, then it is false.

Too bad he's banned. I rather hoped for an explanation of what happened at SL-1. My guess is nothing.

I'm gonna have to say life begins when it becomes alive.

What was his real agenda? Holocaust?