Moontanman

While I agree that War, if fought at all, should be fought to be won I have to agree with Iota on this, fighting a religion, especially when the people in charge pretty much insure that everyone involved has no point of view but their point of view is probably a fools errand. Ideas are hard to kill and these people have been culturally isolated for so long we have very little in common, what we call freedom has a completely different meaning to them and until they want change from within i think our efforts there are always going to be a holding action. Education, trust, and understanding will probably win far more than MOABs but attaining it will be difficult, as IOTA stated we are fighting ourselves from hundreds of years ago, the harder we try to win the more effort they will put into us not winning, i can't see continuing this war on the basis of killing every one we disagree with... Religion is a powerful force, it took us a long time to come to grips with the idea of freedom of religion, until quite recently freedom of religion pretty much meant freedom to obey my religion for us as well, i can't see us changing this over night any more than it changed for us over night...

Computer simulations of what happens to Earth like planets when they are subjected to great heat, similar to the super earths orbiting near their home stars is allowing scientists to gain insight into how these planets form and how Earth and Venus became so different. http://www.gizmag.com/super-earth-destroyed-simulation/23628/?utm_source

A contest backed by google to place a telescope on the moon is moving closer to fruition... http://www.gizmag.com/iloa-lunar-telescope/23639/?utm_source

Elshamah (where did you get that user name dude? ) how do i tell you this, I assume you are a smart guy, in some ways smarter than me, i don't even have a web site of my own, you got me beat on that for sure. But this is not a contest in intelligence it's about evidence, you seem to think in absolutes here, if naturalism cannot answer everything it must be false, this is really a mistake on your part. In a moment I'll attempt to show you why. but first let me say this. I support your right to believe in a god, i support your right to believe it only on faith. As long as your belief in god harms no one I say hold on to it if it makes you feel better. I'll argue right there beside you supporting your right to believe, your right to faith in a supernatural higher order of reality. If you live in the USA you have that right for sure and I do support your right to that. I know a great many theists who are good decent people, in fact i would say most are probably by a wide margin, some are annoying as hell but so am I, love to annoy people, in my old age it's the only sport i have left. Where the problem lies is your need to assert your belief as fact, you have every right to your own beliefs, Jesus as portrayed in the new Testament was an amazing man, i won't equivocate and say for his time, he was amazing any way you look at it. He asserted things that brought about tremendous changes in society not the lest of which is the theme of non violence that can be taken from the words ascribed to him, of course a great many people have twisted and used these words to support all sorts of violence and other crimes but that is the nature of humans to take the mantle of authority from others and use it for their own means. To deny this would be stupid. The idea that god is the ultimate moral authority fails on many levels totally independent of things like evolution, the big bang, dark matter, star formation, none of these things, even if we had no understanding of them what so ever they have any bearing on the problem of moral authority. Yes, subjective morals are a consensus of what most people feel is right, to me it's quite easy to show that morals can be based on the logic of doing no harm to others and treating others the way you want to be treated. Respect and empathy are the main tools i use to see how i should treat others... could this idea be used to commit crimes? Of course it could, virtually any system can be perverted to serve the one instead of the many. The place where the idea of objective morality fails is that first of all who is the giver? Which moral code do we go by? There are so many different ideas on this it would be difficult to adequately describe them all and they all come from a god or some god like power. Now if we go with your idea of who God is it's quite easy to show conflicting morals all throughout the Holy book being used as a source of this objective morality. It's also fairly easy to show that these morals are ignored by followers of this god pretty much everywhere they appear to insist we follow this moral code. My conclusion is that this objective moral code handed down by god is no better than any other moral code as far as getting people to follow them. Do you really think homosexuals should be killed? Do disrespectful children need to be killed? Should a girl who is not a virgin on her wedding night be killed? Come on, you know you don't believe that and anyone who tried to follow those objective morals will spend some time thinking about it in jail in our society. A moral code that can change if necessary and that protects the rights of individuals as much as possible is superior, it's what we currently use by the way, and i think that's a good thing because if we settle on one written in stone set of rules what happens if your little corner of religion is not considered a part of this? it happened frequently not all that long ago, various denominations of Protestant Christianity have been demonized by other denominations and persecution due to differences in religion were quite common and deadly. Then of course you have the differences between the Catholics and Protestants, not a pretty history for religion... My point of course is that the idea of objective morality based in religion can be used to justify anything, no moral code is immune to this. I will assert that we as a society are morally superior to earlier societies that were based on the word of some god, this is probably not an absolute truth but I haven't seen any Jews boiled in oil for eating meat on Friday in my life time. No witches burned at the stake lately even in my neck of the woods where fundamentalists quite literally rule. Although there have been some disturbing demands to put gay people in concentration camps based on the morals of your god. Now i ask you, would you rather live in a society that allows you to hold your beliefs, in fact gives you the right to do so, or would you rather live in a society that takes rights away from anyone who disagrees with the rules given in your bible? Will you be the first person to step up and kill a homosexual? Are you willing to kill based on the demands of your god? if your neighbor cuts his grass on Sunday are you going to get your shotgun out and kill him as he mows his grass? Are you really willing to enforce such rules of behavior? if not you are closer to being in my camp than you think... Believe what you want, profess your beliefs, you have a right to them but you do not have a right to your own facts...

Why do you keep asking this? iNow answered it for you several posts ago, why do you keep asking it? This is misleading and dishonest not to mention almost 60 years out of date... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils More misleading tripe from your own website? How about some real science? http://www.space.com/450-planets-form-mess.html http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form Charlie Wagner? really? Talk about blatant dishonesty, he is not a scientist, just a science denier, his babbling is no better than any other science denier, all he does is deny, he doesn't provide any evidence for anything. You are quoting William Lane Craig? You have just lost all possible credibility, he is nothing but a christian apologist, a much debunked Christian apologist, his musings on this subject are horse feathers... Show evidence of that please Again, no one is saying that, all that is being said is that at this time we do not know where everything came from. Good idea And you have been shown several times why this is not true, fine tuning is bunk, if things were different they would be different, nothing else can be said about the fine tuning no information in DNA, as for morally perfect... I pointed out how morally bankrupt your myth of god is way back in this thread. No it is not, you would still be left with no evidence what so ever other than your faith... but more importantly naturalism comes up with new answers all the time, once lightning was thought to be god's wrath now we can divert it away from us, is god that weak? The logical step is to continue to seek answers not stop and say god did it, if we had done that 200 years ago common diseases would still be killing people diseases that are easily cured now, god did it is not an answer to anything... lets see, 4 of them have nothing to do with morals, one is just about impossible for humans, one is iffy but I'll give it to you since defying it could cause harm to another and the other 4 are self evident. Now i ask you, god demand humans break these rules quite a bit in the bible, he breaks them as well, how are they relevant to the commands to kill I showed you earlier in this thread? Again go to post #7 in this thread, watch it, try to understand why Hitler was wrong via these ideas. If you cannot then maybe you really do need the threat of eternal damnation to keep you in line... which standard in the bible is the binding one? You don't understand what evidence is and why it is important do you? Ok, on this you come pretty close to having a point, if i were to assert i knew there was no god i should have to support that assertion with evidence but naturalism proves it's self, it works, but know one here is saying that naturalism proves there is no god, this is your own strawman... yet another link to your web site where you give misleading and distorted views as evidence? Naturalism works, take away the fruits of naturalism and most of the people on the earth would die with in weeks months for sure, naturalism works, no way around it, with out scientific naturalism we could not be having this conversation, most of us would not even be alive... You really didn't watch the video in post #7 did you? More dishonesty Elshamah, you have been shown the answers to your questions over and over, you present no new evidence to back up your assertions just the same high pitched whine about how unfair it is....

I to have often wondered how he came to power and how he convinced so many to follow such a dark course. To be honest i think some of it was simply the perfect storm type scenario. A cult of personality built around someone who was severely flawed who was able to attract a great many others who were similarly flawed. From my perspective it's difficult to imagine anyone thinking such things but we have leaders today that advocate horrific things but they don't seem to attract the numbers of people today that such people attracted back then. We don't quite jump to the beat of authority like many people did then and fewer of us are willing to allow others to tell us what to think and do, not that such people don't exist now they just don't seem to as many of them nor is blind obedience thought to be as virtuous as it was then either... Personally I think the movement toward reason and rational thought have greatly crippled the people who would do such things.

BS, you give us walls of text with nothing but stuff that has been refuted so many times if I had a quarter for every time they've been debunked I'd be a moderately wealthy man but you seem to think that we have to refute each one every time you post them. It's like you think you will win this debate by overwhelming us with details. I've got some news for you, there is no win or loose here, only evidence and so far you actually have none, nada , zip... Only your faith and disbelief, your inability to understand doesn't negate reality. If you want to play fair I will too, but stop with the walls of text listing everything you think refutes reality and expect us to refute them all at once. Start a thread if you can't find one to suit you and give us your evidence, one thing at a time and allow us to either refute that one thing or admit to not knowing. One thing at a time but if you expect me to continue to go back over the same material over and over the long lists have to stop and once something has been refuted it stays refuted until you come up with new evidence for it. Simply repeating it over and over is nonsensical and smacks of insanity... Stop using your lame website as evidence it is nothing but evidence of your own ignorance in this matter... You are using a tactic of dishonesty creationist types are well known for, I suggest yet again you check out the 9th commandment, the one about being honest, you might want to check out the golden rule as well, not that it has anything to do with a god... BTW, one more time, I see no evidence of god, therefor the default position is there are no gods, this is not an emotional issue, it has nothing to do with hating god or rejecting god it has to do with a complete lack of actual empirical evidence, none what so ever, if you want to believe then believe but be honest about it, it's your belief, it's not a verifiable description of reality, it's just not... I do not hate god or the idea of a god, it would be great if there really was such a being who really really cared about me personally and if I die all my relatives who have already passed waiting for me, maybe like the Mormons I'll get my own planet but so far i see no reason what so ever to expect anything when i die but nothing... For me time is neatly separated into three sections before i existed, while i exist, and after I exist, if you want to convince me show me something that validates your claims other than it's what i want things to be... by the way you've been pwned in this thread so many times it's really kinda sad... morality does not depend on religion, the idea that it does when compared to religion and what religion represents and what the people who assert it do to support their god is immoral. the idea that you or i cannot be moral with out an immoral monster to tell us what to do is disgusting...

The pictures are just awesome, as clear as if i was there, you expect to see a beetle rush past on some errand or a tuft of grass in the background... awesome pictures it looks like a place! I've been to places that didn't look any different, I am just blown away and the really good pictures haven't even been taken yet!

For me it breaks life down into two eras, BC and AC, Before Children and After Children...

No... one is not warranted to to conclude anything of the sort, but lets go with this, if someone comes up with a better theory than the big bang, lets say just for the sake of shits and giggles that this theory is better supported than the big bang and it asserts that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, just change from one state to another will you abandon your faith in a creator god? Are you honest enough to admit it when your assertions about god are disproved? Will you become an atheist if this happens? or will you continue to look for even smaller places to put your foot? Oh I mean god... BTW your web site and your shameless promotion of your own website as evidence which gives no answers that have not been refuted many many times is dishonest, doesn't your creator have something to say about that? something about a 9th commandment?

Anus from Uranus is a friend of mine.... nothing like science fiction R&R

When i was young i thought the meaning of existence was to party and have a good time, then i had kids.... let the good times roll...

I am so stoked about the Curiosity Rover! Real knowledge is much more impressive than pretend...

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/new-software-helps-employers-read-your-emotional-state?

Edgar Cayce led the devotions from the grave last night...

I noticed you didn't show up last night for services at the twice reformed non denominational church of no leprechauns last night, you missed a lively debate and they opened a new barrel of meade...

Oh I know what weak atheism is, I was just doing him the favor of answering his question with a question like he did...

What is weak theism? And you have been shown this not to be true... Again I have shown all of this, I refuse to keep beating a dead horse... Animals have no decision power? You cannot be seriously asserting that? All social animals have behaviors that promote the species and the individual to a greater or lesser degree, these would be the equivalent of morals, wolves, lions, chimps all have behaviors that can be called moral in their context. It doesn't match what we call morals exactly but they do take care of each other, they do not eat each other or kill each other for no reason. Still to suggest animals have no decision power is outrageous, have you never had a dog? Not at all, in some ecological niches non social animals do quite well, this idea cannot be used to say that all animals have to be social to survive... I think i just did... social behavior requires behaviors that allow members of the group to live together, those that fall outside the behaviors that promote the group do not do as well and tend not to reproduce over time... So again with the assertion that I have just not studied the bible even though I have told you i have... And I am asking for evidence there is more than the universe... No, creation as you call it, is evidence of nothing but the existence of the universe, nothing else can be implied from that... This is evidence of nothing but your ideas about god... No there is not, this is a blatant lie.... Your incredulity is not an argument, just because you can't understand something... False dichotomy, your choices are not the only ones and do not preclude a natural cause we are as yet unaware of... You claim god derives from nothing if not where did he come from, saying he is eternal is no better than saying the universe is eternal... why add a layer of complexity that adds more questions? How do you know that? Why can't the universe just be eternal? You could do that but it stops all inquiry into the problem, if we assume god did it then why bother to investigate? If we had said that about disease we would still be trying to heal with prayer and people would still be dying of easily cured aliments... So god is not all powerful? the being you claim made the universe by simply speaking it into existence is not all powerful?

So you use a blatantly biased site (christian fundamentalist) to support your assertions about atheism?

I see pymander, thank you for clearing that up....

I have an interest in paddlefish to start with, they are a hold over from a time when the dominant animals were literally quite different from what we see today. I have it on pretty good authority that paddlefish breeding has been part of an effort to bred a paddlefish that lacks the paddle feature. Since captive paddlefish being raised for eggs or meat do not need the paddle breeding a paddle less paddlefish could allow for better growth since it would mean more paddlefish and less paddle, the paddle does take up a lot of energy to grow and makes it more difficult to keep the paddlefish in enclosed areas. It was found that the paddle is highly conserved and efforts to eliminate have been unsuccessful... I'm not sure but my money is on the HOX genes being responsible for the paddle in some way and removing the paddle would result in removing genes that are important for other reasons. Paddlefish are very interesting fishes, an ancient linage, that predates dinosaurs, quite possibly even bony fishes, the now considered extinct Chinese paddlefish is, or was, a predator, very much shark like in many ways and yet totally unlike the shark in many others, To me it's a glimpse into what fishes were like before bony fishes evolved or at least became dominant...

This immovable Earth...