zapatos

I didn't realize that with maturity your desire to state your opinion or show emotions diminished. If the 'experts' no longer state their opinions or show emotion here, I'll just go back to reading text books.

Well, as we think it really is, based on the data we were able to collect.

So the scriptures are false. That is a lack of evidence of god, not evidence that god does not exist. If I'm unable to address the question of 'how God can set Himself a task...', how does that make me delusional? Admitting there is a paradox would seem to make me seem more sane. I imagine 2000 years ago, the 'nutters' were those who did not believe in God.

I'm happy to look at it from the perspective of a more general use of the term delusional. Even under more common use, in order to consider someone delusional it would at least require them to have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought. I imagine a significant portion of the theist population does not have the ability to do that examination, and a significant portion of those who do have the ability, have not bothered to do so. Therefore calling a theist delusional is an extreme generalization. Regarding comparisons of God to the tooth fairy and the like, I don't feel that is a good comparison. No one of any maturity claims the tooth fairy is real. There are no historical documents, schools, artifacts, ancient texts, or other (however tenuous) evidence supporting the existence of the tooth fairy. I feel a better comparison would be to that of the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot. Not much better, I know, but at least there are adults seriously examining the situation.

For myself, I like to argue about it because I have the desire to feel confident that my opinion is well founded. But if others wish to not examine it, I think that is completely acceptable approach, for the reason you mention. Correct. It would put the divine source of that information into serious dispute. That is, it would tell you it was probably not divinely inspired. How do you reach the conclusion then that God doesn't exist, rather than the writer's of it were gullible, or liars, or had an ulterior motive?

If I write a scientific paper on dark energy, and the paper is thoroughly debunked, is that evidence that dark energy does not exist?

If I understand correctly, a delusion is a belief despite evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary?

Since evidence seems to be so important to you, can you provide the evidence that theists are delusional?

If you are referring to individual fruits (e.g. an apple) and vegetables, then I would say that it does not make sense to categorize them as male or female. Would you categorize an arm as a 'female' if it came from a woman? If you are referring to plants and trees, then yes, as Moontanman said some are male, some are female, some are both. Also note that a plant part that is a result of a fertilized flower (e.g. apple, pea, green bean, etc.) is a fruit.

Blood sausage and scrapple are also pretty disgusting. I don't even like to read about them.

When I eat okra it makes me think that is what it would be like to eat a cat tongue. When I eat brain it makes me think that is what it would be like to eat, well, a brain. Too ripe bananas gag me. I LOVE tomatos. I'll eat them any which way. During the summer I'll often cut up three or four tomatos, grab the salt shaker, and eat away. I even drink the juice that remains on the plate when I'm done.

Mmm Mmm. Making me hungry! I didn't actually see an argument in all of this for more funding for NASA.

And you refuse to use words as commonly defined.

"God did not create our universe." That is quite a bold statement. Can you back it up at all? And if you would, can you please explain what you mean when you say 'God goes against every piece of science ever known to man'?

It has been a while, but... Assembly is not machine language and therefore not understood by the machine. It must first be compiled or assembled into machine code to be used. Assembly is just much closer to machine code than, say, Java. Machine code is developed in conjunction with the microprocessor. Microprocessors can only read the machine code developed for that family of microprocessors, not for some other microprocessor family. A player piano analogy... The composer is the software developer The sheet music the source code The punch machine to create the piano roll is the compiler The piano roll is the machine code The player piano is the microprocessor The player piano can play the piano roll because that is what it was designed to do. It expects the holes in the paper to be formatted in a predetermined way. The piano reads the hole, which is simply an instruction to play a predetermined note. The microprocessor can read the machine code because that is what it was designed to do. It expects the instructions to be formatted in a predetermined way. The microprocessor reads the code which is simply an instruction to perform a predetermined action.

I guess anything travelling through the air is more accessible than anything travelling by wire, but wireless is not very risky as long as you set it up properly. Here is something to look at: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelesssecurity/tp/wifisecurity.htm If you have encryption turned on at home, not many people are going to be able to cause you harm. If you connect your wireless device (e.g. laptop or iPhone) at the local Starbucks via their public hotspot, even I could listen in.

How do you like typing on the tablet? If browsing is all you do it may be fine, but if you are frequently posting on forums typing is important. My Kindle Fire is small so maybe it is not representative, but typing on it is similar to typing on my iPhone. Nice for short messages but I wouldn't want to do on it the type of work associated with posting.

Ok, I understand and agree. How do you feel about the ban on deer hunting? In Missouri the general concensus is that allowing unchecked growth of deer populations is rather cruel. An annual harvest of deer through hunting keeps the population in check and limits the rather gruesome deaths associated with starvation. Since Missouri has no wolves and only a small number of mountain lions, there are not many natural predators for deer. Deer can also be dangerous. In 2010 in Missouri, there were 3,420 traffic accidents involving deer, two deatsh of people, and 352 injuries. http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2010DeerReport.pdf That is a gem; very nice! I do have one comment though. Lincoln is specifically saying that bullets are not the answer when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided.. I sincerely hope that those who wish to have guns in case the need to take arms against the government arises, plan to use them only if ballots no longer fairly and constitutionally decide.

I assume this comment came in the heat of the moment. Surely you don't think hunters as a rule derive pleasure from the distress of a hunted animal. Have you actually spoken to Americans about this or is it coming from another source? I live in America, about half the people I know own guns, and I don't find people to be fearful, whether gun owners or not. Yes, we Americans feel there is no better way to start the day than to slaughter a couple of cute bunnies, a pottering bear, and perhaps a neighbor or two before breakfast. Here is an example of what some hunters in America are like. I'm happy to say this is coming from my fellow Missourians. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/venison-donation-program-has-record-year-in-missouri/article_15e539a3-510f-55bb-9e0b-f02e88857d6f.html

I have a laptop that I keep on my desk, hardwired to the printer, the router, and a mouse. The reason I bought a laptop is that occassionally I have the need to take it with me, which I cannot do with a desktop. It is a fairly low-end Dell and I never intend to upgrade the hardware (no need), so ease of physical upgrade was not an issue for me. Wireless seems a bit slower to me than ethernet, and wireless means you have another device to deal with, but overall wireless works well and does not require much extra effort. I also use a Kindle Fire, but if I had to choose between owning one or the other, I'd go with a laptop over a tablet with no hesitation. My situation is not much different from yours and I chose a laptop over a desktop.

StringJunky -- Never having been to the UK and therefore not knowing what it is like outside the cities, can you tell me how much of your country is small town or rural? I'm wondering if this is one of the differences between attitudes in the US vs. the UK. In the US there is an awful lot of the country where being self sufficient, including for your security, is necessary. There is some degree of isolation for a lot of people outside the metropolitan areas.

I apologize for going off topic but I'm wondering why in nearly all your posts you denigrate people/scientists/religion. It is not arrogant to believe you are at the center of the universe if the evidence points to that, which it did before we better understood the cosmos. I know of no one, scientist or not, who believes 'humans are aware of everything that exists in the entire universe'. It is hardly brainwashing ('systematic use of unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated'-wiki)to introduce your children to a widely held belief system, particularly when at the time the masses were generally uneducated and science was so poorly understood. It may be best to simply reply to the topic of the thread, and open your own thread if you wish to discuss the problems with people/scientists/religion.

Just because I cannot answer with certainty your mostly ridiculous questions ("if I punched God in the face would I go to heaven?")does not indicate God does not exist. I could ask you just as many questions about dark matter. Just because you couldn't answer them with certainty does not mean it doesn't exist.

I think people go to war if they have unmet needs, and the benefit of going to war outweighs the cost of going to war. The more economic and military parity you have, the less war you have.