zapatos

I believe that rather than all particles receding from each other, you would have superclusters receding from each other. Dark energy is not strong enough to break apart gravitationally bound systems (or rocks).

Ok, I get it. So from a practical standpoint, how should I deal with the risk of unintentionally insulting people when comparing them to others? Obviously if I know my audience well I don't much risk comparing them to someone they dislike. And it's probably low risk comparing people to famous singers or athletes, but maybe a good rule of thumb is to not compare someone to a religious figure (or politician, for that matter) unless I know them well. Or to get to the point you were making, maybe I should just say they sing well and leave it at that.

Not at all, but I guess I am. Let me try again. When commenting on someone's singing, is being called Sinatra-like not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment?

Is your objection that you are compared to Christ, or that you are compared at all. For example, if I said you made pie as good as my wife does, or your singing reminds me of Sinatra, would that be objectionable? If singing is a big part of my life I think high praise would be to compare you to someone I thought highly of. Are comparisons to religious figures different than comparisons to other figures?

I drink a reposado called 1921. Very nice. It is not the one I get drunk on though because I wouldn't waste it by shooting it, and it costs too much to drink too much of at once.

Because I know it is good for me I tend toward lean meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, non-fat dairy, beans, small amounts of nuts, and healthy fats. I don't buy organic or avoid salt and sugar. My water comes from the tap. I don't take vitamins. I drink alcohol, usually Johnnie Walker Black scotch or Old Bushmills Irish whiskey, and beer. Most of my worst drunks have involved tequila. I don't drink much wine, and will try any food or drink. And most important, I never let a good diet get in the way of good food, no matter how bad it is for me.

Yeah, it may be an emergent property of religion, but I've always thought it was probably an emergent property of people. I know this is anecdotal, but over time I've found that the groups of people I've thought highly of for one reason or another, all turn out to be just about like any other group. It seems all groups have a similar percentages of people who are nice, smart, jerks, arrogant, helpful, etc. At first I was shocked when I heard priests had molested so many boys, thinking there should not be many people like that in the priesthood. Then it seemed like every other priest was involved. Finally I heard that the percentage of priests molesting boys was roughly the same as the percentage of people molesting children in the general population. I'd guess it would be the same for other attributes as well. If an evangelical today who thought only his type of person would go to heaven was suddenly sent to 1930's Germany, he would probably make a great Aryan. That is, he would express his high esteem for his group, whether his group happened to be religious or of some other type.

I too think it is acceptable. Who is the arrogant and ignorant one who said otherwise? I said it was ironic that one group would deny the other, then benefit from the others fruits. Just as you did. In what religion can you walk on water and move mountains if you are a true believer? And again, can you tell me where in the bible it says you cannot or should not utilize engineering and math to get you to your point of interest? Thank you for your advice on how I should behave myself spiritually. Any comments on how I raise my children? What religion are you talking about?!? So in your mind it is ironic that theists utilize the work of atheists, but not ironic that atheists utilize the work of theists. How ironic...

Ha! That is great!

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

By definition. If it wasn't nearly round it wouldn't be called a planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

Well thank you for that massive generalization. But somehow I'm having a tough time figuring out when my grandmother had time to be evil when she was so busy with her charitable work. Can you be more specific about what evil traits she has? Yeah, I feel the same way about the non-religious who utilize many of the religious based food pantries or charity hospitals. Can you give me the biblical context that says it is wrong to use technology?

Would it be harder than it is for indigenous populations in the Arctic?

As I don't wish to see you languish in your ignorance and I feel you would like to know, I have to tell you. For someone who is so easily offended, your approach to others is often offensive. I say this in the hope you may rethink things. Your choice.

Please, don't stop there. By all means let me know what other faults I perhaps have. But I am motivated by your example of taking it upon yourself to speak your mind. From now on, when my wife asks what I think about an outfit she put together to wear, I am not going to limit my comments to practical aspects regarding how the shoes don't match the purse. I am going to give her the straight story -- she needs to stop deluding herself about her fashion sense, and the best thing that will come of that outfit is that it will give others a good laugh. In fact, I'll be sure to tell strangers what I think, too. And why limit my comments to what they've asked about? Surely they'll also be interested in my opinion of their personal failings.

I can see that your post applied to the sentence "Your theory is invalidated by evidence." Was all the rest (grow up--ignorant and foolish--your ideas give a good laugh--self deception) part of science?

I found it to be not unusual at all. It is a fairly common 'bash religion' article serving no real purpose other than giving the author a way to sensationalize the evils of religion without talking about any of the good.

The effect of gravity decreases with distance. As an analogy, imagine a bar magnet laying on your desk and a metal ball bearing stuck to the end of it. If there is a steady breeze blowing over the ball bearing it won't move because it is too close to the magnet. The further you move the ball bearing from the maget the less the impact the magnet has on the ball bearing, until at some point the breeze will become the dominant force and the ball bearing will start to roll away. In a similar way, if galaxies are close enough to each other, dark energy cannot overcome the force of gravity. However, at a great enough distance, dark energy becomes the dominant force.

So you make a proposal that is so far reaching that half the world's population must be sterilized, based on an IQ level of 100, without even knowing what an IQ level of 100 means. You are then told what an IQ level of 100 means. And you still don't know what an IQ level of 100 means. Wow! Instead of insulting the kesha tic toc girl, maybe you should have said "Read this thread, this thing who started it can be the poster boy for Eugenics."

So what? The stupidest of us will still be fairly intelligent, rather than knuckle dragging morons like nowadays. The point is, half of the population will always be sterilized. Let's say after a while the dumbest person in the world is an Einstein equivalent. That person will have to be sterilized because he is too dumb. And even if you are spared from sterilization now due to your above average IQ (I'm assuming you would not have made this proposal if your IQ was less than 100), you may be castrated in 20 years when the average IQ goes up and you dropped below 100.

An IQ score of 100 is the average. Someone who supports this idea now because they are on the top side of 100 may find themselves on the bottom side of 100 after this is implemented. Oops!

If the universe is expanding at a sufficient rate then no additional energy will be required to allow the universe expand indefinitely. Gravity would not be able to overcome the rate of expansion. Similar to escape velocity.

I am unsure if you are implying that anyone in this thread has so far suggested that only those who can defend themselves by force of arms are entitled to rights, but that is certainly not my position. But being entitled to rights and being able to exercise rights are two different things. As a practical matter, a right that I have but cannot exercise is no more valuable than having no right at all.

I certainly think so. If one body (say, the UN) grants more rights to the prisoners at Guantanamo than another body (say, the US) then the UN could certainly make a legitimate argument about the treatment of those POWs. But the problem the UN has is guaranteeing those rights. They can use political influence, economic influence, moral outrage, and even force. But as you pointed out, the group with the most power, usually the captor, can enforce his view. I'm sure many people think that the citizens of North Korea should have more rights than they do, but unless someone can enforce those rights, from a practical standpoint they will continue to have only those rights granted by the North Korean government.

I belive that 'rights' is a concept developed by man, and can only be given by man. I don't think there are any 'self evident' rights. And the 'right' is only as good as the body that is ensuring your use of it.