Iota

Being offended doesn't make you right. OK man, thanks.

That's a ridiculous form of nit-picking; to point out that condoning isn't the same as relating, even when I didn't make either of those assertions in the first place, and then completely ignore the other quote in my post which makes my point. Stop being ridiculous.

OK even if they were of an adult age, Lot is still getting drunk with his daughters, alone in a cave... God strictly forbids getting drunk off of wine. Then they have sex with him twice and he doesn't notice either time, so therefore he has no responsibility for it happening? Completely backward. He also gives up his daughters to an angry mob, to be raped. The Bible is sex obsessed, in a really sick way. It's little wonder why sex is such a taboo subject with most Christians. Yes, I get to make points. Not ALL of them. I would happily respond to your points, but first you have to make some.

I ALSO quoted the law for stoning people to death, so YOU have no excuse for turning a blind eye to it.

Bible apologist. What about stoning a man to death for breaking the Sabbath? That's beyond condoning it, that's commanding it. And if you want I'll bring you lots more quotes which DO condone mass genocide and much worse.

If you read that in a newspaper today, would you buy it? (the story, not the newspaper) I think there's a point where you should stop playing the devil's advocate and just read between the lines and accept something that is self-evidently sick, as being such.

Alright, so let's say for the sake of argument you broke the commandment "thou shalt not kill". Yet God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations, Christian scripture orders the murder for sins as petty as breaking the sabbath: "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses." (I like how explicit it is "... and stoned him to death with stones".) ... no s***. So really, like most fundamental values of the Bible, it's contradicted heavily, and open to any old interpretation. Maybe if you have a schizophrenic priest nearby, you can ask him to talk to God and find out whether it was his work or not. Otherwise there's no way of telling really. Precisely, so the absolutes of Christianity will be broken, even in situations where it seems OK to do so. But I suppose so long as you're sorry for what you did and pray, you're forgiven anyway, so it doesn't matter either way? Is this the same as following Christianity? I think scripture might tell you its not. I still don't understand, why not live by parts of the Bible you like, without affiliating yourself with the whole religion, which comes out with disturbing garbage like this (clearly written by uncivilised people): http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=NIV "He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up"- yeah alright mate, sure... he wasn't aware of it TWICE. If you ask me whoever wrote this part of the Bible was an incest and paedophile apologist.

If you already formed those beliefs, by yourself, what's the need of adopting the Christian version of those beliefs, or a deity for that matter? Christianity relies on absolute moral values, surely you would want to continue forming your values based on rationale and experience, rather than outdated absolutes? I just don't see the logic in that, especially with the way which Christianity contradicts its fundamental values countless numbers of times, and considering the immorality of some of the values it teaches. Not at all, the pointers are appreciated and useful. I just felt I'd made my point already, and it reached the point where I was tripping myself needlessly and at the expense of my original argument. The debate became more a contest of arguing skills rather than whose point was more logical and evidence supported, IMO.

Please refer to this video for other an alternative method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwxl_-DHqKo&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLC083AB6A1E3CADA9

Oh well, if the fact that atheists do convert to theism, somehow indicates an actual reason for doing so, I'm yet to hear about one that isn't just faith based, but actually based on hard evidence. Something I view has having significance. And black-or-white fallacy, if I'm being honest. I shouldn't have touched this question with a 10 mile long stick, it's more of an argument for its own sake than one whose purpose is to try understand anything IMO. I agree I've discredited my own argument, so I'll stop while I'm ahead. I wasn't intentionally changing fonts, it probably occurred when I was adding quotes to my post.

Because it links explanation (the nature of religious belief) to observed trends (how religious groups are distributed) in a way that makes sense and leads to one logical conclusion, and renders your original question of why, redundant anyway. You're being crafty by avoiding my reasoning, instead repeatedly make vague references to a part of my style of approach towards the topic, and attacking it with your opinion: that it doesn't answer your impossible question of why, which will never be satisfied, no matter what anyone says. I've explained why, just not in the way you're demanding, in a non-scientific way, in an unanswerable way, in a way that manages to avoid admitting something that we all know to be evident, i.e. when it comes to subscribing to a religion, there's no rational reason for doing so, therefore to claim to believe for any reason other than indoctrination, isn't really possible, because there is no reason to believe it, because there's no evidence. It's belief for the sake of belief, so even if you truly think that you're religious for any reason other than indoctrination, or thoughtless belief, that reason is invalid, because its not a reason, because reasons involving reasoning, which purely faith-based beliefs do not do.

My question may not have immediately asked why? which is the reason why I felt my question was more appropriate, because there is no correct answer if you just ask 'why'. At most that can be answered with someone's opinion of 'why', which can easily and without much of an argument be denied again and again. The question of what are the chances? forces both people in the discussion to base their argument on evidence and rationale, which itself answers the question of 'why' you think that. That way, in order to now plausibly deny my conclusion of why, you must counter my rationale by telling me why it's wrong, rather than just suggesting an infinite list of baseless arguments that suggest the contrary to what I said, or anyone else said. You didn't come back at my reasoning, instead you argued a technicality to do with the question I used in order to approach the issue more effectively. I don't think the rest of the world is irrational and superstitious, I think they are irrational and superstitious when it comes to their religious convictions. I by no means intend to undermine them as intellectuals, there are lots of religious people who are rational about things outside of their beliefs. But I still reject the premise that religion can be a rational belief, based on the reasons I said in my last post.

I don't think 'why can't they?' is the right question to be asking. I think a better question is, 'what's the chances they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you?' And the answer is that the chances are very thin (and very thin is being generous, but I'll refrain saying 'nil' because it would be unscientific to do so), and here's why: If you were to colour label a map, country by country, according to which religion is followed in a clear majority, in each, you'd see a very clear trend. There will be zones where people follow Islam (Middle East, nearby parts of Africa, and surrounding regions), zones where follow Hinduism (India), zones where people follow Christianity (Europe, USA, Australia...) (just as rough examples.) This trend has an important significance. It shows us that populations generation after generation are subscribing to the same belief systems as their parents, and their surroundings, whereas other regions in the world subscribe to another belief. Let's say people in Pakistan compared to people in the USA. If the people in the USA 'drew their own conclusion' to remain Christian, and the people in Pakistan also 'drew their own conclusion' to remain Muslim... how could they both have done so, when each religion has equally zero evidence? Why is it that Islam seems to be a plausible conclusion to people in Pakistan, yet not in USA (and vice versa)? How is it possible that they are making their own informed decisions to believe a select religion, when geographical evidence shows clearly that it seems illogical to come to the conclusion of Christianity in some parts of the world, yet not in others? What I'm asking you is, why is the conclusion of Christianity geographically variably a good conclusion? The reality is: that to come to the conclusion of theism isn't really doable in the first place, because to come to a real conclusion, you need evidence combined with reasoning to do so. With religion you believe it because you want to -for whatever non-evidence driven reason that may be- not because of a rationale. You can argue otherwise but you'd be kidding yourself if you believe these trends are mere coincidence or down to something other than thoughtless subscription to one's indoctrination, in the vast majority of cases. Your belief is not evidence driven, therefore you must believe purely because you choose to. To do this is not an informed or rational or thought-out decision. It's belief for the sake of belief, and you have no plausible reason for believing what you currently believe over any other religious or mythical beliefs, for which there is equally zero evidence supporting them. The decision to choose to be atheist is different, because you make the decision not to believe because of the zero evidence for all religions, and hence you make the informed decision to follow evidence over the irrational, faith-based superstitious consensus of your region. At most you can make your own decision to continue subscribing to your life long religion, in spite of hearing alternative views, and learning that god is not evidence supported. But you can't called it an informed decision in the same sense as an atheist converting out of religion due to finding out the same revelations. There's a clear difference, with all due respect.

lol fast version: User: Are you stumped? Cleverbot: No. User: You are stumped. Cleverbot: Yes, are you? User: No. Cleverbot: Why, because you're jealous? ------------ User: Hi Cleverbot: How are you? User: Are you talking to me or you? Cleverbot: Yes.

Star Trek is equally as good, this is acceptable. Phrase it as technically as you'd like, but it's still wrong.

Let me start of by very simply clearing up your confusion about meditation in the religious and non-religious sense. Religious meditation- meditating in the pursuit of achieving perfect inner-peace, in the name of a deity. Medical use of meditation- borrowing aspects from traditional meditation, i.e. sitting in silence, being calm, using reflective thought to 'clear' your mind, and promote improved mental well being. The difference is clear, religious meditation the goal is the unachievable notion of perfect inner-peace. It also involves a deity. The medical version has borrowed the word 'meditation' because it's very similar in many ways. You could call it 'sitting down quietly and thinking to yourself', but that's not as catchy. You're questioning its purpose as a psychological treatment- purely on the grounds that it's not 'Western'? Sounds like a rhetorical, and worthless question, aimed at rather bluntly expressing your opinion that nothing foreign should be used in Western societies. That's nonsense. It's clear that you feel threatened by the notion of a foreign tradition being put to good use in the Western world, which is a very Xenophobic stance and completely irrational too. There is no agenda, it's just a ludicrous crackpot conspiracy theory you've built in your mind. It's entirely baseless. No one is forcing you to listen to your doctor, do as you please. OK, it's clear that you have no idea whatsoever of what psychology is. It's a study of how the mind works and works to help people with the knowledge that is gained. It's not a religious movement, it's not a political view, it's not some conspiracy to make you embrace other cultures non-willingly. Go research what psychology is because you have a really warped view of it. Are you a Scientologist by any chance? You're drawing non-existent parallels between unrelated ideas which you've made up in your head. You'd be outlawing something that you've completely failed to understand on every level. One of the cons of a democratic system.

OK thanks. I suppose it's not actually that different from other internal places in the body, I just mistakenly viewed the skull as having a significant impact against homoeostasis; as though internal organs could only cool by losing heat from the body surface. What's the chances of this news coming up just when I'm asking questions about the brain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23863544

Why doesn't the brain overheat within the confines of the skull? Alt. how does the brain cool itself down effectively, despite being surrounded mostly by thick bone? My guesses are that the brain doesn't produce that much heat, and maybe something to do with the layer of fluid between the brain and skull.

Like Moontanman said, the conditions haven't been constant, so saying in 4billion years it's only occurred once is redundant. As for the Earth being 'perfect' for life, how do you know what the perfect conditions are for life to form? Also, at what point or which time period was Earth 'perfect' for life formation? It's not suitable for life formation now, according to the currently best science theories explaining how life first formed. It's currently good at supporting life, not forming life. I would replace the word 'perfect' with 'viable', and drop the idea that this occurrence has only ever occured once. You can't accurately assert that at all. I'd be interested to know why Hawking is doubtful about extraterrestrial life though. I agree.

Please never refer to Star Wars as 'that Jedi garbage' ever again, Star Wars is one of the best things ever to have been thought up. Atheism isn't a religion, it's the exact opposite of the belief in a deity, not an opposing, alternative belief. Other than those two points, I agree with your argument.

You know, I was looking for Moretti the other day, because I've been meaning to try it for ages, but the pub I was in didn't have it. Which one is better is redundant to me as of next month anyway, because I'll be on a university budget again. Pints of Carlsberg all the way.

I looked up about dimensions years back, I became none the wiser though. There are videos explaining what the 4th dimension would look like, and a game which plays in a 3D representation of the 4th dimension. I couldn't comprehend it really, and someone else claimed the 4th dimension is light... or something. What I'm most interested in is the potential for life that may occur which we wouldn't expect to. That doesn't conform to the normal definition of life, or life that does... but forms differently.

You're a genius in the art of deception.

I enjoyed China's literal translations of European country names.

I'm sorry, you'll have to be bare with me here, I'm still not sure what you mean, and I think others might have trouble too... let's determine exactly what you mean so that you can get a good answer to your question: What do you mean by "... "glue" using encased chemicals." that doesn't quite make sense, can you please try to rephrase that if possible? When you say chemicals I'll assume that you mean molecules? I'm not aware of anything able to do this... or know that it's possible. The reason certain molecular substances don't bond is purely to do with stability and valence capacity of molecules/atoms. Though, I still don't know what you mean really, but I suspect what you're looking for is unknown/impossible, because if any of us knew of such a substance, we'd be making millions off already, or it would already be in used. Just out of interest, what benefit would be gained out of having such a 'glue'?