winsor

This set of concepts is truly neolithic. A more compelling argument for the case that religion is symptomatic of emotional illness would be hard to make.

A further optimization would be to just say: religion. Not quite. Judaism is a tribal identity with religious traditions, while Islam is an Universal Religion - huge difference. Just like someone can be Arab and Druse, Wahabi or Christian, someone can be a Jew with or without religious affiliation. The contention of Muhammad (may he rot in hell) was that Hebrews are the legitimate children of Abraham (via Isaac) while Arabs are from the bastard side of the family (via Ishmael). Since he tended to plagiarize shamelessly, and made up much to suit his purpose (in a manner akin to Joseph Smith), there may or may not be any substance to the claims. That the differences between Jews and Arabs amount to a family squabble between the civilized part of the family and the dueling-banjos side does fit. BSBD, Winsor

Look at it as occupational therapy - gardening in the form of pushing up daisies.

Since you appear not to have noticed, Bill Clinton is no longer in office. Vitter is, and appears to have committed a criminal act.. Not the point. the OP demands to know why the double standard. So do I. Well, it seems the Dem leadership DOES want Weiner to resign. So why doesn't the GOP leadership ask Vitter to resign? Maybe he has more on them than they have on him. Maybe they're envious, and hope that they can get as lucky if he's around to give them pointers. Maybe he serves as Mr. Bad Example, and they look exemplary by comparison. I can not imagine how anyone might think that, by protecting someone with the demonstrated morals of an alley cat, they could get congressional approval ratings out of the dumpster. Government service should be a sentence, not a career. If our representatives were selected randomly for one and only one term, with no lifetime benefits, we could hardly do worse than the Bozos (with apologies to the clown contingent) that have gravitiated to Capitol Hill. I am more concerned with legislative incompetence than I am with inappropriate application of genetalia on the part of our elected officials. I would much rather elect a career prostitute who understood how to balance a budget than a pillar of the community who would render us bankrupt by incompetence. Then again, we are already stuck with whores who have given away the store, so the point is moot. BSBD, Winsor

Your continued personal attacks and lack of substantiality in your replies suggests the contrary. You don't debate the points because you lack the capacity to do so. You're simply a jealous Jew that pops in here from time to time just to call christians poopie faces. Irony score = 10

For one to be an atheist, in the true sense of the term, he would have to claim to possess all knowledge (which is impossible). To definitively deny the possibility of God would mean that it could be proven. I admit that the contrary can't be proven airtight. But neither can you prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, I know you could then say the same could be said of the flying spaghetti monster. I would then say I am agnostic with regard to the FSM. Can you say the same with regard to God? I say you can't truly be an atheist. Then you might say that the proof is incumbent upon me because I declare that there is a God. But you make a declarative statement yourself in saying that there definitely is not. That also puts a burden of proof on you. Again unless you are going to claim agnosticism instead of atheism. You again demonstrate conclusively that you know less than nothing.

You neither understand nor were there. Ever. Now how could you possibly know that? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to infringe on your atheism. Not to worry, you are not capable of infringing on much of anything. Your claims of understanding demonstrate nothing short of cluelessness. If your standpoint had merit, it would not require belief. As it is, it requires both belief and a laundry list of logical fallacies. Rest assured that I am not trying to sway your opinion - I do not value in the slightest. BSBD, Winsor

A willingness to question the fundamentals is key to understanding. Every once in a while someone will come up with a scheme involving "perpetual motion" or "cold fusion," and the scientific world will dutifully attempt to verify the validity of the claims. If it turns out that cold fusion is, in fact, viable, you will have people working on it immediately. It has nothing to do with "belief." Admittedly, when working as a patent clerk, A. Einstein would routinely toss patent applications in the rubbish if they made claims of perpetual motion systems - but some presentations do not rise to a level worthy of serious consideration. BSBD, Winsor

So, I completely understand the misunderstanding of and hostility toward what we're talking about. I used to be there. You neither understand nor were there. Ever.

Maybe, but it's spot-on. Frankly, I think left-wing and right-wing hogwash is equally subject to this effect. The more completely nonsensical is one's standpoint, the more likely it is that one will adhere to it with increasing tenacity when it is pointed out. The moment you introduce "belief" into the equation, you have entered the realm of emotion over intellect. You may or not be right, but that has precisely nothing to do with whether or not you believe something. Give me skeptics every time. BSBD, Winsor

It's just precious when you pretend to know what's going on.

Neither.

It's never gonna happen untill you play their game...relax, I'm trying to help. btw , There are prerequisites that I doubt you have the capacity to understand. Though Winsor is a non-observant Jew, I credit him much in the way of comprehension. His statement was intellectually dishonest. You have shown yourself to possess neither intellect nor honesty. Pick another approach.

You underestimate yourself: How stupid is that? There is a difference between cunning and intelligence. don't forget about intellectual dishonesty then... Feel free to explain it to me. Provide your sources...How have you come to knowledge of "Cousin Jesus?" Perhaps if you back up your claims with anything other than your own wishfull thinking it might be worthwhile...till then, all I have to go on are intellectually dishonest musings from a jealous Jew. Why should I waste the time with such vanity? Edit: I do not mean any disrespect. I take the words of Romans 11:17-22 very seriously: If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. Your source was written by a Pagan Poser. Of course you take it seriously.

You underestimate yourself: How stupid is that? There is a difference between cunning and intelligence. don't forget about intellectual dishonesty then... Feel free to explain it to me.

Why would size make the non-causal theory more plausible? Most believe and evidence points to the idea that the universe had a beginning. You obviously believe that everything in existence came from nothing (on its own), blew up, and organized itself. That's the usual mystical/dogmatic approach of the evolutionary atheist. It must be the unfathomable enormity of the universe or an unimaginable amount of time to make it all possible. Anything other than the idea of a Creator with purpose. I can't even bring myself to respond to your straw man comparison to Santa Clause fairy tales. I'd rather keep the conversation on a mature and intelligent level. Your whiffing on both counts.

You underestimate yourself: How stupid is that? There is a difference between cunning and intelligence.

Given someone who supposes that the vastness and complexity of the universe is too vast and complex to simply exit, and thus is the result of a causal force that is orders of magnitude more vast and complex than the universe itself, is completely undetectable - and simply exists. Okay... And given the wholesale acceptance of a set of conflicting, heavily redacted, fifth-hand archaic accounts, wherein the prime mover of the universe supposedly finds the focus of existence in a particular member of an agrarian desert tribe. Right... Further given that the fate of the universe is presumed to be dependent upon the arcane nuances of badly documented interactions with said member of the agrarian desert tribe. Yeah, sure... The whole set of concepts is barely worthy of derision. Mythology is often but a bullshit overlay of history; Nicholas was a very real major player in Constantinople, but has precious little to do with the jolly elf bringing toys to all the good girls and boys, care of 12 arctic draft animals. Similarly, the siege of Troy had major political and economic significance at the time, but the accounts involving various residents of Mt. Olympus can be attributed to literary style more than anything. The observant Jew who got all the attention (AD - after departure, mind you) did so courtesy of those against whom he apparently railed. It was Romans (Paul, Constantine) who claimed to have become followers, but rewrote the rules of observance to more closely fit a European Pagan (rather than Hebrew) worldview, and much of the writing was done by the same scribes who put Greece on the map. In their literary style, ANYONE who was worthy of note was the result of a god impregnating his mother while the father was not around. Witness Heracles, Theseus, et al.. In any event, the fact that anyone should become an adherent of such patent nonsense is of great concern, and I lack the ability to achieve the level of stupidity to take seriously any of said nonsense - or its adherents. Such stupidity is historically quite pathological, and thus very frightening. BSBD, Winsor

Jesus didn't just endure physical suffering and death on a cross. While he hung on that cross, Jesus took upon himself the righteous wrath and holy hatred of God himself. God "crushed him" as the just penalty for our transgression. He suffered and died infinitely more than we can comprehend. Jesus endured way more than what Roman soldiers could inflict. Jesus died to pay an "infinite penalty for an infinite obligation." He died alright. No doubt. I find it frightening that anyone could conceive of anything that stupid, even in jest.

You have yet to be right. About anything.

I fully understand how this all would not make any sense to a "rational, thinking, adult" atheist/humanist. However, it makes perfect sense to a "rational, thinking, adult" Christian. Oxymoron.

Do you rate Phrenologists as well?

Maybe you could give examples, including the math, of why it doesn't work for other conditions? Basically, if I exit with 1000 ft separation from the previous group, how is it that I won't be 1000ft away at opening? (Assume same discipline, same fall rate, same opening altitude) Since it is a four-dimensional continuum mechanics problem, the math would not be all that useful to anyone whose math & physics background is short of a solid master's. Here is Tammy Koyns transcription of my Descent Kinematics seminar notes, where I tried to use graphical representation of limiting cases to get the point across. John Kallend did a marvelous job of addressing the subject, so I did not develop it further. The bottom line is that: 1) There is a finite minimum time that groups should take between exits at a given airspeed to provide sufficient horizontal separation out the door. 2) Additional time may be ADDED to account for lower speed of the aircraft with regard to the airmass at opening altitude. 3) What the ground is doing is, in and of itself, irrelevant to what objects are doing in freefall. Groundspeed may be used on a "rule of thumb" basis, but its physical relationship to maintaining separation is incidental. BSBD, Winsor

Last night I had a dream that trolls were invading my computer. I thought trolls left lawyers alone out of professional courtesy. Sharks. See avatar. "One's a scum-sucking bottom feeder, the other's a fish." Sharks you're not.

Ground speed works okay for normal operations (jump run into the wind, winds constand direction and increasing with altitude), and it is "close enough for Government work," but I still flinch at its fundamental theoretical inaccuracy. Admitted, it is better than the "45 degree rule," but there are cases where it is just plain wrong, and could get you into trouble if you used groundspeed as your sole basis - which the spreadsheet does. I suppose dumbing down the process has much to recommend it, and it could be argued that it's better than nothing, but I would prefer a treatment where the fundamentals are presented, and the fast and dirty approach is given with appropriate disclaimers. The Excel spreadsheet is a fast and dirty approximation that works reasonably well most of the time. There are, however, very real circumstances where is is entirely inaccurate. BSBD, Winsor