iNow

Sounds like you're used to your ideas being challenged. That was a pretty ready response you had right there.

...more specifically, google scholar. scholar.google.com

It happens, frosch. No worries. Don't spend too much time worrying about kicking yourself while you're down. There are plenty of other people around to do that for you.

I am not an expert, either, and this may not be completely on topic, but it sounds like you may enjoy this article which I read this morning: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F Do subatomic particles have free will? If we have free will, so do subatomic particles, mathematicians claim to prove. "If the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living things throughout the earth?”—Titus Lucretius Carus, Roman philosopher and poet, 99–55 BC. Human free will might seem like the squishiest of philosophical subjects, way beyond the realm of mathematical demonstration. But two highly regarded Princeton mathematicians, John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably. <more at link>

"The place" is one where they are not launching nuclear missiles at anyone, especially under religious motivations.

It's curious to see how strongly Putin still holds power, as well as the near unilateral agreement across the world that Russia is in the wrong. They've signed their agreement, but don't seem to keen on leaving. It's also making the US look weak since we have little to nothing with which to stand behind our words of condemnation. The reality of the matter is that we need Russia's help to get a grasp on nuclear proliferation, we need their help to keep Iran and N.Korea in their place, we need their help on global warming, and we can't just say "You're not allowed to be in the G8, so there!"

Our version of "harm" is often an evangelicals version of "benefit." Along those same lines is why I didn't like McCain's response on evil. As if it's all black and white and what he thinks is evil must be destroyed. Rubbish. Obama's answer here was FAR better, where he advised caution, and spoke of how often evil had been done in the name of good, and how we must consider this before blanketly dismissing something as evil and taking action against it. For the same reasons, we must recognize (as you and DH have pointed out) the important balance brought by the various justices, and how our nation is improved as a result of that complex interplay of differing views. None of them are some "evil to be destroyed." They are seen as good to some and not good to others, and if McCain truly wishes to lead this nation he must respect differing views and account for them in his decision making process. In my mind, any candidate for president of the US should be able to tell the difference, and avoid speaking in such false absolutes to pander to an often ignorant crowd more interested in stopping abortion than solving global warming and the countless other existential issues facing the population of our planet.

Really, doG's metric about other countries with vastly stricter gun control laws having higher suicide rates than those with more open gun control really says it all. I suppose another metric that would speak to this issue is countries with little or no gun control laws, but also little to no suicides. I haven't bothered searching for this data, but I presume it's out there. Either way, I am sorry to hear of the experience you had with your fiend, Lance. Those situations are extremely trying, and the emotional burden is often enormous. Thanks for sharing. I still disagree with your conclusions for the reasons stated above, but I'm not a total monster and I can empathize with your story. Take it easy.

Nice. I was wondering if the Galileo gambit would be added to your routine. You've just raised your start value to a 6.7!

Right, but all I spoke of was his reponse, not the question. He tossed out those four names without even an inkling of hesitation or respect. I can't believe for a second that he feels that strongly about those four judges, but he knows the audience did, and that's what bothered me. He was being false and he was working that crowd like a con-artist would. This IS politics, I understand, but I too thought McCain was better than that. Now, not so much.

Obama campaign provides 40 pages of rebuttal countering more than 50 claims in the Corsi comic book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPEEMnfaUnU EDIT: This page has the rebuttal in .pdf as well as summaries on the page: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/corsi

Obama's responses were measured and authentic, but cautious. McCain is good at playing the audience and pushing the right buttons. I wonder if these folks are going to critically analyze all of the comments from both or just be sheeple who are actively waiting to be fed what they want to hear, regardless of its truth or applicability. On a brighter note, McCain spoke very frankly telling stories about his captivity in Vietnam. He made a very strong connection with me on that. It was like sitting beside a brother who was recounting a trying time. Powerful stuff. He's still talking now. Life begins at conception, he wants 4 judges off the SCOTUS, and couldn't have survived Vietnam without his faith. Oh... way to work 'em, John. You're good. No wonder those town hall meetings are a favorite of yours.

Instead of addressing everyone's points, Lance, you accuse them of being overly emotional. Thanks for reminding me AGAIN why I should just ignore you. I appreciate your continued reminders. Thank you.

As I've already said, it's much more likely that it's just a growth in awareness of the issue. No need to completely retool evolutionary theory due to some misapplication of it.

New technology allows us to see tissue and cell level interactions. We can also analyze the chemical compounds and compare those against our existing knowledge of those compounds and how they interact with live cells. At some point, though, once all steps have been taken to understand it at the microscopic level, you must study it macroscopically. I'd argue that most people don't want to harm animals. That makes good sense. Where I struggle is when people are blinded to the reality around them in their attempts to force such testing to stop. The world is complex, and not everything is so black and white. Sometimes we have to do cost-benefit analyses and make tough choices. Again... nobody wants to harm animals (at least, very very very very few), especially the scientists striving to make lives better and improve the world around them. Saying that all animal testing should all stop outright means you're signing the death sentence of many of your friends and family. Not ideal, just necessary.

We each probably have different views. I know that even sometimes at work it's still uncomfortable to openly state to my peers that I don't believe. Either way, we're pretty far off topic. This thread is about a presidential set of questions (turns out it's not a debate) at a church. All interested can view it at Readers Digest online. It starts in 7 minutes: http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/rick-warren-hosts-obama-and-mccain/article95604.html

Where do you live/Where'd you grow up? Ass kickings and brutality for being sincere on this issue are far too frequent where I am.

Lance - How about you focus on the topic and not on me, shall we? You do that far too often, and it shows just how weak your position truly is.

My internist referred me to a female urologist. I saw her yesterday and she is gorgeous. She's beautiful and unbelievably sexy. She told me that I have to stop masturbating. I asked her why and she said, 'Because I'm trying to examine you...'

Also, the statistics on numbers of atheists are somewhat of a poor measure. For years and years it was downright dangerous to openly admit lack of belief in god(s). Fortunately, the recent openess of dialogue brought by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and countless others has helped with this, and an "out" campaign has taken root. I think it's as many as 20-30%, but also depends greatly on your definition of "atheist" (with weaker or more pantheistic definitions it could actually be far higher, and grows every day). That said, you're quite right, PhDP. I may not like the battlefield, but the strategy being adopted is what is called for given the layout of the land. Thanks for reminding me to recall the writings of Sun-Tzu and to keep some realism in my thoughts (and also that the debate will be shown on CNN, which has an HD channel here!). ParanoiA - That's the beauty of DVR/Tivo. You can do both. I'll watch some "Nasty Nastia" and then watch my recorded version of the debate. Best of both worlds, you Ron Paul fanatic! Enjoy everyone.

This is not a place for prostylization nor the spreading of religious bunk or numerology.

Nice.

I really get the sense, Lance, that strategy number two (print media) as discussed in this video has really worked well on you: http://smartenergyshow.com/node/67

SkepticLance has demonstrated a correlation, but that statistical insight doesn't follow toward achieving his stated goal. He's shown that guns are highly successful tools for suicide. He's stated that he wishes to reduce the rate of successful suicides. He's asserted that banning guns will achieve this. Fair assessment so far on my part? I should like to think so, but here's the rub. As has been repeatedly shown, if someone wants to take their own life, they will find a way. It's really that simple. So, banning guns does not achieve the stated end goal since we still have rope with which to hang ourselves, pills with which to overdose, cars with which to drive off cliffs, bridges off of which to jump, concrete with which to make shoes before jumping into the pool, poison to drink, wrists to slash, highways to walk across, planes to jump out of without parachute, bears to throw rocks at, insulin to over inject, swords with which to disembowel, sledgehammers with which to skull crush, and countless other ways limited only by the imagination. Banning guns won't achieve the stated end. It arbitrarily removes a freedom form everyone under a stated motivation which it will not achieve. It's like saying that we should ban shovels at construction sites because there has been a rash of killings at construction sites using shovels. Taking away the shovel won't stop the killings. If the shovel is removed, some other tool will be found. That's just human nature, and part of our creative problem solving spirit. It's not the tool that is the problem, so Lance's statistical analysis really matters not. His myopic view here reminds me very much of to his desire to ban pitbulls. It's short-sighted, misguided, and fails to address the root issues.

It will definitely be interesting to watch tonight and see what happens. In addition to what you stated above, I feel the move will also tick off non-religious non-partisans. The thing is... it applies to both sides so kinda gets lost in the wash. (it's not one candidate pissing people off for doing this, it's both).