ydoaPs

That's not all. It is also plagiarized partially from this wiki. ! Moderator Note As such, the thread is closed pending staff review. There are also other threads about fine tuning if you actually wish to discuss the topic without plagiarism and copypasta.

From what I hear, 23andme has some good packages.

! Moderator Note Do not make threads solely to mock theists/atheists. Thread closed.

....it's actually 0.07%. That number is roughly 40 times lower than the percentage of atheists in the United States.

There's actually a field of study on this subject called "Evolutionary Psychology". Frans De Waal works tangentally to it and has several good lay books.

You don't. However, if you ask the staff nicely enough and offer cheese nips, we may do it for you.

No.

I still think my post #456 of this thread is fairly spot on.

It contains the false claim that the plagiarized and inaccurate embryology in the Qur'aan is correct, so it can't be worth reading.

In addition to what swansont said, I'd like to point out a common category error in the OP. Logic isn't about anything in the physical world outside of propositions. The propositional calculus is about propositions, that's it. It's not about rocks, or trees, or cabbages or kings. It's about ideas. So, X isn't a thing, but an idea. The three things you mention are three forms of the same proposition. pv~p ~(p&~p) p->p They're not "nothing can be neither p nor not p", "nothing can be both p and not p", and "if something is itself that it is itself". It is, however, "all propositions are either true or false", "no proposition is both true and false", and "if a proposition is true, then it is true".

Saying the universe always existed (which is true by definition, btw) explicitly contradicts your claim that consciousness is the cause of existence.

That may well be because it is vague to the point of meaninglessness. And your tests are bad. Try getting a group of people. Each person gets a random number such that you do not know which person has which number. You get the birthdays and places of birth of all of the people on cards with their number on it. Then, you prepare the readings and attach letters. Read the readings and corresponding nletters out to all of the people at once. Have each person write down their number and which letter of reading most accurately reflected them. My money is on your system failing the test just like all of the others. Actually, if you'd like, we could set this up on this site for you.

It seems that this mangled version of the Blue Eye problem doesn't give enough information.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

! Moderator Note I'm not sure where this belongs since we don't have a section for engineering speculations/crackpottery, so I'm putting it in Speculations with all of the free energy machines. Perhaps you'll have better luck there.

Why should reality have a cause?

Which is the distinction I was pointing out. The words point to the same thing, but they point to different things about it.

You're a terrible time traveler. You should have checked out where he was before heading here. Or, even better, come to a time when he was still active on the interwebs.

So far, DOMA is struck down. Prop 8 is dismissed on standing meaning there was no grounds to appeal and thus SSM is once again legal in CA. Watch the announcements live here.

Which logic?

They're not both Venus?

<mod hat> It has to do with the rules. The first post, since it wasn't discussing the contents and was merely directing to an external site, constituted nothing more than an advertisement. Quoting the entire thing is a copyright issue. Both are against the rules. Now, there's nothing at all stopping the OP from summarizing the arguments and giving links supporting the arguments. But "hey guys, go to this website" is completely unacceptable. </mod hat>

! Moderator Note Keyword: "parts"

When there's a split brain patient with one half Christian and the other half atheist, does only half of the soul go to heaven? Split brain bodies develop two entirely different personalities. In fact, it's hard to be around one and force yourself to think of it as containing only one person. Here's a very prominent neuroscientist describing a case which led to the initial question. It really makes me wonder how people can hold onto things like the belief in a unified immortal soul in the face of modern neuroscience.

! Moderator Note Rule (7) states: "Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links in posts should be relevant to the discussion. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned." As such, since this post amounted to "hey, go to this website", the link has been snipped. If you want to discuss whether or not "the real origin of the scientific method is religious", make your case here. Do not reply to this modnote.