JackC

Then all bets are off. But you've placed limits on what god is and that makes him decidedly less god-like. Whatever your new demi-god is can then also be logically poked to see what falls out.

I've been down this road before with those of the fantical form of the religion of atheism - have fun, they really hate this argument. Even if it is dead on accurate. Do you believe in the existence of square-circles? What about married-bachelors? There's no evidence to suggest that either of these things don't exist; so ignorant apatheticism is the default position, right? But hang on a minute, neither of those things can exist by definition. Circles can't simultaneously be square and bachelors can't also be married. Just like a square-circle can't logically exist because of mutually contradictory properties, an omnimax god also can't exist because of mutually contradictory properties. So there you go, positive disbelief without the need for faith.

Easy, we're open minded just not so open minded that our brains fell out. No evidence... no belief. Since it is unidentified, how did you come up with that number?

Let me get this straight. Republicans are more likely to rate their own mental health as exellent compared to democrats. Proof. Republicans are delusional.

Exactly. I learned a long time ago that to further an agenda it doesn't matter how right or smart or awesome you really are, that's not what counts. What counts is how right and smart and awesome you can make people think you are. Hollywood credibility - the illusion of competence - people think if it looks good, it is good and it works beacuse most people are too damned lazy to check.

And I would like to say bollocks. So I will. Bollocks.

Is this what it's come to? If you can't argue with facts, spam them into submission. How convincing, I wish I'd thought of it.

There's a major flaw in Lockergnome's argument. You don't buy software. I'm not talking about ripping it off or getting hookey copies from your mates, I'm talking actual GNU licenced genuine freeware. I have not bought any software in years. Windows and Linux are generally better supported for freeware than Mac. Plus you can go to any high street computer store and buy a replacement PC graphics cards, RAM chips, motherboards or whatever you want off the shelf dirt cheap. It's not so easy with a Mac.

For starters it is the absence of hate, anger, fear, greed, vindictiveness, dishonesty, lusts, envy, and self deification. If you valued spiritual development then you would know that humility, love, honesty, charity, reverence, peace, transparency, and joy are some of the characteristics manifested by those who do. Have you seen the shit people do in the name of God? You stand more chance of getting "spiritual enlightenment" (whatever that is) free in a breakfast cereal box.

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that?

That's all well and good but that's not how science works. If I perform an scientific experiment and publish the results, to be of any use at all they have to be reproducable. That means that I can go back to my notes and do the experiment again and get the same result. Or someone 2000 years in the future can read my notes, do the same experiment and get the same results. The mere recorded words on their own are actually worthless, the work has to be reproducable to stand up to scrutiny. The words and deeds of Odysseus are written in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. That doesn't mean Odysseus' was real and his life was toyed with by real live Greek Gods. I'll bet you agree that the story is clearly absurd. In the same way that Homer's Odyssey is worthless as evidence for Greek Gods, the Bible is worthless as evidence for the Christian God.

Can you give us an example of where science has shown us that miracles do happen? You'll need to tell us which definition of the word miracle you are using. You also have to believe that 2+2 will equal 4 next time you add them up. Scientists don't randomly start researching in any arbitrary area. They choose an area of research based on what has been learned before and where a there is "gap in the market". A gap that stands a good chance of being filled. You wouldn't just randomly start a business without a proper business strategy and a good level of market research, what makes you think science is any different? If you insist in defining faith as "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" then absolutely anything could be an article of faith. If you're a Republican and you have strong convictions, you have faith; believe gravity will pull you towards the planet when you exit the plane, you have faith; think chocolate ice-cream is tasty, you have faith. You definition is so wide that absolutely anything and everything could be an article of faith. You definition is therefore pretty useless. Keep it simple: to know requires proof, to believe requires evidence, to have faith requires neither.

I think this is based on a definition of science that is actually bogus. The universe exists, that's pretty obvious; but why the universe is the way it is is not so obvious. Science basically takes the universe as we can measure it and tries to use logic and reason to figure out what makes it tick. It doesn't take faith (in any usual sense) to recognise that the universe exists and it doesn't take faith to take that information and say "with the universe as we see it, what can we find out about how it works". We don't know if the universe is even understandable at the ultimate level but we have reason to believe that it might be given that we can at least understand parts of it. In it's purest form, science is faith free. Now there may well be scientist who believe certain things about the nature of the universe but can't prove them. That is their own personal belief but it isn't anything to do with science in it's purest form. Many people quite happily drive their cars without even the slightest knowledge of how they work. But cars do work, that's usually the way of things. Driving a car doesn't require faith. Similarly, people can add up their grocery bills. They don't need to be experts in number theory or even be aware that number theory exists to be able to do that. You don't need faith to know that within the usual axiomatic mathematical system: 2+2=4. Just because you can ask more and more detailed questions about science until you are confronted with the answer "I don't know", doesn't mean faith lies at the centre of it all. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable and faith-free answer. If you have to invent an unknown thing, mechanism or event to link all your theories about how the world works, then and only then have you invoked faith.

Ahh yes, Gary Moore... master of the guitar face. Mean gitfiddle player thouugh.

One thing I absolutely love about Vai is his ability to put exactly the right note in exactly the right place with exactly the righ attack every single time. His control over the instrument is second to none. The cheesiness of his music is also second to none. Well, OK it's not that bad but it does have a certain plastic quality I can't put my finger on. Satch I like. A hell of a lot. His music is much more organic and real. But Vai is technically the better guitarist.

Put it this way, when I drink I look like a lawn sprinkler.

Hi Dann, Oh I don't know, something unambiguous that could be prodded and poked (scientifically speaking) by anyone. Something that would yeild the unavoidable conclusion that goddidit. The sort of evidence that leads people to believe that gravity exists. Actually, you'd do better if you dropped the "biblical" condition to your question since the bible isn't up to much as a book. Steven King writes better prose without divine inspiration. Getting into this conversation in here usually results in an empty can and worms all over the floor, the walls, ceiling and half way down the street. Get out while you still can!

Fripp and Zappa are both rediculously good. Fripp's cross-picking/string-skipping ideas are insanely difficult to do and Zappa was just so whacky that imitating him would be virtually impossible. Hendrix on the other hand, and I usually get shot for saying this, was over-rated. While his music might be a little avant-garde for some, Allan Holdsworth has to be right up there in the gods too.

Tommy Emanuelle is a really good player although he does get carried away with the percussive thing, in fact he gets carried away a bit too much for my tastes. Still, it has inspired me to put down the electric and learn to play a bit of acoustic fingerstyle.

Not necessarily evil, but definately inherently asshole.

only for fundies. Catholics & many mainstream protestants don't use the Bible as a science textbook. Well, Jesus' alleged birth from a virgin is a scientific question and it's not just fundies who believe that. But for me, the over-riding point is the way you have to think in order to believe in god. That suspension of rationalism and abandonment of reason needed to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever is distinctly unscientific. Actually, I think it smacks of gullibility and I can't understand why ordinarily intelligent, rational people would do it.

They seem to be using Tazers like a human version of a cattle prod. Good for getting the sheeple to tow the line.

I know an Andy McKee track called Drifting has been posted here once or twice and that there are a few folks here who liked it. Well here is another guy who plays in a similar vien that people might enjoy. His name is Antione Dufour and he's stoopidly good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGemE401r-M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNw9YaXemlM&feature=related This guy is pretty amazing too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gMgK7h-BA

While it is true that there is no way to experimentaly verify string theory, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a religion. It's certainly quite distinguishable from any accepted religion I can think of. String theory does however make some predictions which can be verified and I'm not aware of any religion which can do that. But even so, string theory isn't an accepted theory in the strict sense, it's only a hypothesis and doomed to remain so since it cannot be tested, and I know of no university that teaches it.

People decide they either want kids or they don't. If they do want kids, they know how to go about making them. The kid doesn't get asked if it wants to be born. In fact, the good of the planet is not usually a motivating factor in the decision to reproduce. Having a child is just about the most eco-unfriendly thing you can do in the normal course of your life. The decision to reproduce is usualy in response to the feeling that "I want kids". Note the words "I want". The world is not short of humans, in fact there are too many of them and many of those are unwanted. There are kids who don't have a family of their own, who would be glad of the chance to become part of your family. But people want kids of "their own" because they have a selfish desire to further their own genes. They go to extraordinary lengths (via IVF treatment for example) to get "their own" kids because someone else's cast-offs are not good enough. So yes, in the vast majority of cases, having kids is extremely selfish.