Moontanman

this is the entire message I get, i have done what it recommends... the under lined was added by me, what ever site it is will be displayed where I have it underlined.... this has been going on for weeks now and more and more sites seem to be affected This webpage is not availableGoogle Chrome's connection attempt to (several sites) was rejected. The website may be down, or your network may not be properly configured. Here are some suggestions:Reload this webpage later. Check your Internet connection. Restart any router, modem, or other network devices you may be using. Add Google Chrome as a permitted program in your firewall's or antivirus software's settings. If it is already a permitted program, try deleting it from the list of permitted programs and adding it again. If you use a proxy server, check your proxy settings or contact your network administrator to make sure the proxy server is working. If you don't believe you should be using a proxy server, adjust your proxy settings: Go to the Chrome menu >Settings > Show advanced settings... > Change proxy settings... > LAN Settings and deselect the "Use a proxy server for your LAN" checkbox. Error 102 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED): The server refused the connection.

How can i keep my computer from giving me a 102 error notice when i visit some sites? it looks like the error is getting worse with more and more sites giving me this error. I have done the standard thing of control panel settings but that didn't work.

Ok, must have been too hard... the band is Styx, the album was the Grand Illusion and the song was Come Sail Away.... One more... In this song magic is used to turn a child into an adult, paralyzed by his blue eyes she could not run away, momma was worried... name the album, song, and singer... A very popular hair band... the album was named after popular adjective used to describe a perfect mate...

Why should it have been more open? How is religion any more deserving of tolerance than any other belief? It's hearsay, nothing more... It's no better than the Jesus is coming soon scam i saw when i was a a kid... In the absence of positive evidence the default position is the null position, you can change your mind about what you do or do not believe but in the lack of positive evidence the default position in science is always the null position... Name a religion that insists on empirical evidence? It shows they are applying the screening mechanisms they use for reality, religion does not make the cut. How can giving something as lacking in evidence as religion a pass be a reasonable course of action? the bolded print is insulting, is your disdain for anyone who disagrees with you so strong you cannot keep from insulting them? What do you mean by benefit of the doubt? Give them a pass on proof just because you believe? many people fervently believe in many things that are simply not supported by the evidence. I wonder if you would be more open to a belief in elves or fairies? Many people people truly believe in them, some claim to have seen them and talked to them, do we give them the benefit of the doubt as well? Then why aren't you here doing just that? BTW, isn't more likely that the humanity wide similarities in deities more likely because we share the same brain and tend to experience similar fugue states? Quite the contrary they are completely honest, puff the magic dragon might be a little condescending since it is known to be fictional but unicorns were at one time seriously believed to be real. The point immortal is that religion and the concept of deities has no more physical evidence than unicorns, dragons, elves, fairies, or trolls.

Please show where you have supported your assertion with anything empirical and testable... A god hypothesis should, as should any hypothesis, be required to show some support with something other than faith or belief, your position so far has simply been to make claims unsupported by anything but beliefs, faith and occasionally opinions. I see no honesty in your "god exists" Hypothesis at all so far... You seem to think that because no one can prove you wrong you must be right... no, the default position is not what you cannot prove wrong must be right. In fact it is exactly the opposite, your position is the untenable one... Lack of empirical evidence to support your stance should have given you some pause before you stated that last claim...

I know what iNow means, that sense of awe you get when you see or conceive of certain things in certain ways but you are saying that feeling cannot exist unless gods exist? Is this what you are getting at?

here ya go dude... http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god

How about something to support that besides you said so....

It's a judgement call, not empirical evidence... It's not a belief, it's the simple cold hard facts, if you disagree then feel free to show some empirical evidence that shows me to be wrong... No you did not, you showed why you believe them to be false... Again, no, no empirical evidence supports your assertions, you believe it does but so far you have failed to show it does... BTW you never did tell me if i got the jewels god wears right...

I didn't say what I thought your beliefs were, I questioned your ability to judge whose beliefs are real or not... You have no empirical evidence of anything, all you have is faith and belief and your own opinion... So you give me another persons opinion on yet another persons beliefs about what certain science theories mean as evidence you are correct? You cannot support your assertions with anything other than opinions and belief and faith, not to mention more than a bit of arrogance... BTW, haven't we been at this impasse before?

You are as slippery as an eel swimming in vaseline dude, you failed to address my question completely! How can you say this are not truly religious people but you provide no evidence of how you can say it. It's the No true Scotsman fallacy, How can you say anyone is not truly religious? How do you know other than by judging them by the standard of your own fairy tail? Then you say this Can you support that with anything other than assertions by religion? Then you go on to say Never once have I suggested you said this, you are setting up a strawman instead of answering my original question about your original unsupportable assertion... Now one more time, how can you assert this?

Agreed, that is why I generally claim to be a Empirical Rationalist, it kinda thins the herd a bit... not to mention allows you to shift positions in case a leprechaun pops out of the wood work at some point... Just saying dude... Now that I look at it closer that is more of a Cow triceratops....

You just said it again, please tell me how you know that to be true other than you disagree with them...

Yes but you said that people who believe the end of the world stuff are not truly religious people, how can you justify that statement?

I would really like to see how you can justify making that assertion... Now I remember, no true scotsman...

Netherlands vs the USA in teen pregnancy and abortion rates...

I agree, a few truly miraculous events would turn many a head... I like Star Trek and Ring World or a fusion of the two...

His still was copper... grew his own rye too... organic blindness...

Yes, i agree, if things were different they would be... different... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe

Not to split a hair too thin but that would still be technology... This would appear to be significant to this discussion as well... http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/is-there-undiscovered-weird-life-on-earth-worldleading-expert-says-it-could-be-biggest-discovery-sin.html

Again as has been said, your incredulity has no bearing on reality, please back up these assertions...

I don't see any reason why our kind of DNA life cannot always be the end result of abiogenesis but I see no reason why it should either. if life in the universe was very similar on a macro basis (pretty much a copy of the earths biota) everywhere and complex life was was very common I might let my mind wonder toward some sort of organizational force in the universe but for now both life and complex life appear to be quite rare but complex organics have been seen detected welling up in geysers on a moon of Saturn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/alien-life-enceladus-saturn-moon Enceladus is fascinating... chemistry at work... I don't think I'd take the bet of life being rare or not very similar but I still see chemistry not anything mechanical or intelligent... In fact I think it could be argued that life may have orginated on moons like enceladus and migrated to earth in ice chunks to take advantage of an organic stew on the young earth... Just my humble opinion there by the way....

this is rigney's game, his rules and his ball, if we keep playing we will always lose, heads he wins tails we lose...

many plants and animals have more DNA than a human, this has little or nothing to do with the comparable complexity of an organism. Viruses are chemical machines, each part has a function, not all virus particles have that machine look and the look in that illustration is a bit idealized for sure... you keep making these assertions. can you back them up with anything other than your inability believe or to understand them?

I'm gonna give you links to a couple of videos that cover this quite well. I'm not sure if that will do it for you if not I suggest a few other sites as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis That should give you a starting point for your own investigation but these videos do a pretty good job of explaining the possible processes in a reasonably easy to understand fashion...