The Creo Manual Now on TV

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1It's the whole kit bag of arguments! wow..but what struck me as funny was the assertion that not onlyare we Atheists non-existant walking sacks of Immorality anf vice but also that we are un-intelectual too.. (the bananna thing 2:30-3:30)I must say this steps up a gear from what I'm used to.As to the whole "Are you a good person" routine. Please.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 27-04-2006 01:52 PM

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1The Evolution Zone

a resin cast of a fosil of a dinosaur bone. (if we are getting picky... )This message has been edited by ohnhai, 29-04-2006 07:22 PM

And Just for Fairness and lack of bias I give you Richard Dawkins on Religion (seems only fair...) Root of all Evil? Part OneRoot of all Evil? Part TwoRoot of all Evil? Part Three

Apparently they are 100% for real...

and conversely if you live by myth and non existant evidence, then why not just admit what you are, whats the big deal?

Ahh, the joys of 'restricted binary logic'....

Live long and prosper.

How to prove ”love’:It should, in theory, be relatively simple to prove the existence of the emotion called love. You would need a large sample of people and you would need to wire them up so you can monitor, in real time, as many of their systems as possible. Pulse, Breathing, Sweating, Brain activity and more. In fact, the larger number of physiological traits you can monitor the better.Once you have them wired up you show them a set of images of various objects and you ask them via some kind of analogue feed back ( a dial would do) to indicate how much they love or hate what is shown in the image.Run this experiment with a large enough sample I Predict that you will final strong correlation between clearly discernable physiological states and the subject’s feedback.I.e. when the subject indicates a strong sense of love via the dial, (they see a picture of close family) then you will also see a set of readings that are clearly discernable from the set of readings you get when the subject indicates a strong hate for the object in the image. Call them response A and response B. Response C being no strong feeling either wayWith this data in hand, you should be able to predict the subjects dial input for any new image.This proves the existence of what we call love and makes it predictable. (i.e. you can predict if a subject believes they love or hate the subject of any particular image..)

HA! HA ha Ha HA hA HAA AHA AHAAAh AAhA AAHAHAHAAHAH AAA.... -sigh-LOL.Sorry Ratty. I can’t help but laugh every time I hear this argument. {I was paraphrasing, if you hadn’t spotted it.}You can not assert a document’s validity or truth, buy asserting the claims of validity or truth contained within the very document you are claiming validity for! It stands to simple reason.If you can’t understand why this is, then there is very little point in discussing this further.

---

All things being equal, It's time to tip the scales...
Ohnhai
http://www.ohnhai.com http://www.thewildmachines.com

Indeed.What many people failed to realise is that ”The DaVinci Code’ is, in its entirety, a work of fiction. This means that, other than the legally required information, every word in it is subject to fabrication on the author’s whim. EVEN if those words proclaim validity or truth.

Nice try, but you fall foul of the old pattern of going from a nice set of ”ifs’ to the good old positive declaration with no substantiation.You are assuming a God and that it IS the Christian God. On top of that you are assuming the existence of Jesus and the validity of his word, based on your assumptions re: God. Because of your assumptions re: God and Jesus you are assuming validity for the Bible in your last sentence when you say, “ . since it is the truth”.You are assuming validity for the Bible based on your belief in God and Jesus. But your belief in God and Jesus comes (ultimately) from what you can read in the Bible. It is circular validation and thus is no validation at all.

So, you experience a sudden, strong, unexpected, unexplainable feeling/emotion which you then attribute to God, (after many years of being soaked in the rites and dogma of your faith) because ”what else could it be?’.No matter how real your experience was, it was ultimately coloured by your faith. Your faith is underpinned by what you read in the Bible and what others taught you about what the Bible meant. So when this raw emotion hits you (for whatever reason) there is only one explanation that makes sense to you, and that is the one supplied to you by the Bible, hence my comment that you belief comes (ultimately) from the Bible.Had you never been exposed to the Christian religion, not grown up in its influence, what do you think your reaction to that emotion/feeling you experienced would have been? Would you have automatically have thought ”that must be god!’? I want you to REALLY think about this for a while, and not allow you current absolute belief to cloud your thought in this thought experiment.