JackC

Yeah I noticed that. I was wondering is it best to buy a lower range frame with good (ish) parts or go for a better frame with lower quality parts? In my price range, the big deal is disc brakes. I have two options, a good frame with V brakes or a not so good frame with discs. The example being a Specialized Rockhopper with V's or a Hardrock with discs. I could upgrade later, but I'd need new hubs (and/or wheels) to bolt the disc rotors to. I suppose there is always secret option number three, save up more.

Ok I know what I need to do to get my spirit hole filled. I have to have faith and then I'll be renewed and born again which apparently is desirable for some reason. But none of that answers my question. What is spirit and how do I know there is a hole in it? I reckon spiritualism is a bit like one of those management training programs. Being born again is like becoming a six sigma black belt guru in enterprise excellence corporate bullshit or somesuch nonsense. Sounds very flash but fundamentally doesn't mean much.

You're looking for something that does not exist. Empiracle evidence for a soul. Even with the lack of evidence, I'd like to know what spirit is and how you know there is a JC shaped hole in it?

AC/DC. Duh! Biblical literalists are at least easy to understand. Non-literalists however are a different matter. Once you scratch the surface, just to pin down what a non-literalist actually believes is pretty difficult job in itself. No two believe the same thing, yet paradoxically they all believe the bible to be authoritative. How does that work?

Well I don't much care about the US government because I'm British and it's none of my beeswax. I think the two should be as separate as you can make them but it's damn near impossible to do. In the UK most people don't give a toss about religion and most politicians don't either. It does piss me off that the Church of England still have their grubby little fingers in the House fo Lords though. Normally they politely keep their nose out of government but still, that position should be ended. In the US, it seems the only electable religious demographic is christian so the US government is necessarily christian. I don't see an alternative to that given the present climate. The fact is that you can't separate them completely. Anyone with an agenda can lobby government and religious people very definately have an agenda.

OK so we've established that religion and science do overlap and always have done and that a creator is in fact the mac-daddy of all scientific hypothesese but yet somehow you still want me to believe that non-overlapping magisteria is correct? I really cannot see how you can come to that conclusion.

I was looking at the Trek at my local shop but the deal wasn't so hot. I've spotted a good deal on an '06 Giant XTC LX on the web. I'm thinking a 21" frame will do for my 6'2" carcass. What do you think?

OK, in order to increase the fitness and decrease the fatness I've decided to get a mountain bike. I might even find a small hill (or medium sized lump) to ride it on, I'll build up to a mountain later. Unfortunately, I don't know the first thing about mtb's. Anyone got any recommendations? I reckon my budget will be $600-700.

Right so religion and science did overlap back in the day, because they were almost considered one and the same. Right, so science and religion still overlap even now. You might want it to be an aberration and perhaps in some perfect world they should be separate, but we don't live in a perfect world. The fact is that religion and science do overlap and Gould, well intentioned as he might have been, was wrong. To quote Richard Dawkins on the subject : This [NOMA] sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. With regard to the separation between religion and government in the US (you claim they are separate), ask yourself this: Could an atheist become president of the US? What about a muslim, hindu or sikh? The fact that there is only one electable demographic should tell you that religion and politics are not nearly as independent as you might think.

But the fact remains that Gould was wrong on just about every level when he came up with the non-overlapping magisteria concept. Religion regularly overlaps with science. For example: Cosmology, astronomy and geology overlaps with creation stories and ID, modern medicine and faith healing, mental illness and demonic possession, Gallileo, the dark ages, the list goes on. Maybe it shouldn't overlap, but religions almost always make attempts to explain the origin of the universe and human life, which are very definately the sort of questions that science seeks to explain. The only way around that is to say that religions attempts are parables or allegories or some equally esoteric blabbering. Of course you then have to justify why x story is parable but y story is the legitimate word of god. If a religion gets consumed by parable, it turns into mythology. Greek, Roman, Norse, all religions that have died because they ceased to be "the truth" and were recognised to be just a parable.

And Gould was demonsratably wrong. Religion does overlap with science on a regular basis. ID being the most recent incursion. The truth is that faith is the opposite of the scientific method. Faith is arriving at a conclusion without any valid evidence, science is assessing the evidence to arrive at a valid conclusion. It beats me why you keep on with this obviously flawed non-overlapping magisteria rubbish.

Not really, although it will inevitably be the usual government fuck up, the real issue is the errosion of civil liberties and the end of the right of privacy. The "database state" promotes a feeling of them and us and exacerbates divisions in society. The database information could become the official "who you are" and if it gets lost or corrupt, you might find yourself unable to recieve public services and become a 'non-person'. If ID cards would solve anything I might agree but they wont. ID cards wont stop someone from blowing themselves up on the tube. They wont stop people robbing banks. Only 2.5% of benefit fraud is from identity theft and ID cards wont necessarily stop that either. You can guarantee this will go way over buget, take much longer than estimated, there will be security and reliability issues and it wont do what it says on the tin. This is money that could be better spent on more policing and better border and immigration controls. Things that might stand a snowball in hells chance of working. Say no2id

Indeed, the database will be secure and error free, it won't cost you a penny, you wont get fined if you forget to update the information, the project will come in on time and on buget, the data will not be shared with anyone, they wont sell your details to anyone, you personal details wont be available to fee paying public, the technology wont be forgable, it will cure illegal imigration, benefit fraud and crime and be the best thing since sliced bread. Not. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/pdfs/id-cards-flyer.pdf

With an average response statistically equivalent to dumb luck.

It's funny but when the "no atheists in foxholes" argument comes up as it does from time to time, I always remember my first mal. I think my exact word were "oh fuck" too. But I can assure you, I wasn't thinking about sex. If I'd said "oh god" or "jesus fucking christ" it doubt it have much to do with a new found faith either.

A quick MRI scan should do it. http://www.neuroreport.com/pt/re/neuroreport/fulltext.00001756-200011270-00046.htm;jsessionid=FyXJnpMvvtWJXphGTC8s0MRG2hxt95lL9VbhQG4nTHWyrGjDp53w!-1480123504!-949856144!8091!-1

Sure you can, philosophy is explored in the language of mathematics. You can use science to study art. Here's a paper on the subject: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p785023120070hh2/ It is hard to do science on subjective things. That doesn't mean it's impossible though. But the existence of a thing isn't subjective. It either exists or it doesn't. But spirituality or a religion itself, if there's no objective justification for believing it as you say, then those beliefs are completely arbitrary and as relevant as a persons taste in music. I assume that you think religion is more imortant than the age old Led Zep vs Deep Purple debate. I disagree, a true miracle would be pretty good evidence for god. But if I am not allowed to analyse miracles scientifically, how would I know it's a miracle and not just an illusion? To disallow skeptical enquiry smacks of dishonesty. I'm glad your son was OK but why did this unfortunate event point to god saving him instead of god putting him in the way of the car in the first place? Why is this even evidence for god at all and not telekinesis or your son having superpowers? Is it because you already believed in god and not superpowers? I saw a guy on TV get run over by a 38 ton truck once. He was fine, it was his party trick. I saw one of those Shaolin monks break iron bars over his head, not a mark. Does that defy a scientific explaination?

I don't see what the big problem is with using the scientific method to try and figure out if something exists or not. I'm just not convinced about the existence of things that are indistinguishable from non-existant things. If science can help me decide if something exists, what's wrong with using it?

Sorry dude http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6396405.stm

Now Bonnie Rait can play a mean guitar, I especially like her slide work, which reminds me of Ry Cooder, that dude can play. But getting back to Bonnie, I love the duet she did with John Lee Hooker. Nobody had the blues like Hooker. Dunno how this thought popped into my head but Michelle Branch is a brilliant songsmith. A mean picker too. And on a random country note, I'll throw in Brad Paisley. I'm no country fan but Munster Rag is a belter. And just to be the first to say it, George Thorogood!

I dunno what it is but there is something about a hot chick playing guitar that lights my fuse. Exhibit A. Veruca Salt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG-Xfi5nqVI

Nah, there's some good ones too. Bonnie Rait, Liz Phair, Jennifer Batten, but Allison Robertson of the Donnas, well, she really got me.

Guthrie's got some good live stuff on YouTube, look it up if you get a chance.

If you're talking bass, Les Claypool hands down. But in all your categories, Guthrie Govan (Asia, GPS and solo work) does the business. He did a medley for Guitarist Magazine of guitarist famous for various techniques as polled by the readers. There were loads of different players covered including Vai, Satch, Malmseen, SRV, Gilbert, Townsend, Hendrix, Knopfler, Morello, EVH and more and he nailed the lot.

At the moment Guthrie Govan but Allan Holdsworth is superb too. With honourable mentions to Paul Gilbert, Satch, Buckethead, Bumblefoot (for his fretless antics) and of course Angus. Also check out Stanley Jordan on YouTube, you will be amazed.