philh

"Now if you still want to argue the point, I suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster. " Oh really, well I decided to look atheism up on Websters. Although i think there are other ways to understand language than one campanies say so. But heres what webster had to say: "2 a :a disbelief in the existence of deity b:the doctrine that there is no deity " They have more than one definition. one that fits with my view and one that fits with yours. how convenient of you of to ignore the one that you didnt like and only mention the one you did. they also discuss the etymology of the word and what do they say: "from a- + theos god " exactly inline with what I have been saying which you also so wittily mocked. Now we can go on and on debating this if you want. but what i think is the issue here is that there are religious athiests. That there are people who believe evolution proves god does not exist. Well i think these people are at best not representative of atheists and perhaps dont exist at all. can you find me any athiest web sites that claim this? Im not aware of one. What was said which I think is right is "that every new discovery of science (the heliocentric theory, paleontology, cosmology etc) is another nail in God's coffin. ".Well i think that is very reasonable. We cant prove that somehting doesnt exist. but the more we discover of nature, the less and less reason there is to believe in god. just as every child that discovers there parents buy them presents and that the store Santa is just an old guy in a suit is another nail in the coffin of Santa Claus. After all the more we understand the generation of presents at Christmas the less and less convicing the Santa myth becomes. of course even if millions, possibly billions of parents give their children the presents that doesnt prove santa doesnt exist. we cant prove he doesnt exist in the same way we cant prove god deosnt exist. but there comes a point where all the so called evidence is shown to be bunk so it is just as reasonable to say there is no god as it is to say there is no santa. Tell me the difference? Are you undecided on the existence of Santa? is it a religious position to say that Santa doesnt exist?after all it cant be proved either way.

kallend i expect more form you. a means without when used as a prefix to another word. Moral is a word, put an a infornt of it and it means without morality. Hardly the same with apple, the a is not a prefix and pple is not a word. Its not that hard. Anyway im waiting to hear from those dont have the balls to say you dont believe in god (perhpas becuase you live in the Christian theocracy of America?) but have to remain on the fence on the issue take the same position on Santa Claus?

brillaint argument mate, youve convinced me with your amazing reasoning.

i agree enlgish is not latiin, but it has a latin route. But moreover in ENGLISH when a word has a prefix of a that means without here are some examples: amoral asexual apolitical

No Im not confusing atheist with agnostic. just look at the words and it should be clear. A in the english languange (and its Latin route) means without. A peroson such as Hitler is considered immoral because he had an evil morality. This is not the same as someone without morals ,who is considered ammoral. A theist is someone who has the belief in god so thereofre an athiest is someone who without the belef in god. it is an absence of positive belief not the presence of negative belief. the lack of belief in god is all it takes to be an athiest. Agnostic:gnosic means knowledge. So an agnotstic is someone without knowledge of god. Gnosis =knowledge, theism=belief. simple really. I am an athiest because I do not believe in god. I also believe there is no god, but that is a seperate(although obviosuly not incompatible) issue. can I prove god does not exist? No. Its impossible to prove something doesnt exist, so why not be undecided on the issue as there is no evidence either way. well to that i would say why not be undecided on the existence of Santa Claus. Are you undecided on the existence of Santa Claus since we cannot prove he does not exist?

Your category 6 seems a bit strange. atheism is not the belief that god does not exist but the absence of belief in god. A=without ;thesit=someone who believes in god. I am an atheiist and i've never met anyone or even heard of anyone who thinks the non existence of god can be proved. Instead the facts of the physcial world show no reason to believe in god, thereofre i do not believe in god. Just as there is no reason to believe in Santa Claus,tooth fairy etc. Whilst we cannot prove Santa does not exist we can show how the elements of Santa (delivering presents to every good child on Xmas eve, flying reindeer etc) are not compatible with known science and how the cultural understanding of Santa leads us to conclude he is a cultural invention and not a physcial reality. Same with god and the bible.

And you think having a complete ban on handguns will affect this stat at all? Welll why dont you tell me how the stats got like than in the first place? more guns more gun crime pretty obvious if you ask me.

Why are Americans so happy with the high crime/murder/ gun ownership rate they have? when like is compared with like the US has a staggering gun crim rate. That is when socio-economically and politically simliar countries ie western democracries to you and i, the US comes off very badly. In a recent study (krugg , powell and Dahlberg)the US has a murder rate 6 time higher than the avergae western democracy.Murder by gun rate is even worse. The Us has a gun murder rate 12 time higher than the average of Western democracies. Hardly a coincidence that these lower gun crime nations have less guns : the US 22% of households, .1% in the UK 0.2% in Holland and 2% in Australia. Coincidence? i think not.

Will they have in air voice comms?

Actually they are quite close. we have doen both tunnels in one day v easily.I find Airkix has more powerful airflow and sit flying is a lot easier there. having said that bedford have just made an adjustment to make theres more powerful. See my thread bedford adjustment, im stil waiting for more reviews on that front. At the moment though my provisional verdict is go to Bedford if you are looking for space but Arikix if you want power. Whether that remains to be the case after bedfords adjustment remains to be seen.

i was at Airkix recently and they didnt have anyone approved for spotting head down students yet. As far as i recall Bedford didnt have anyone either. But Paul can probably correct me on that. of coure there are specialist tunnel camps, Bedford have Babylon coming, Airkix have had Rusty over. i would find out if the instructors are able to teach head down before deciding on which tunnel. i learnt a bit of head down at Perris, it involves doing a head stand whilst holding the net , the letting go and praciticing small amounts of movement. All of this is on the net so dont expect to be tranistioning from a sit and flying head down straight away.

Paul would love to come and try it out for myself buy youve only gone and booked out all weekend havent you? Oh dear.

Uhm I have flown in many tunnels and always found it a bit tricky , but not impossible to sit. However in the Airkix tunnel this is not true its just as easy as in the air. Flying in Bedrord I could sit fly but it wasnt easy, flying in Airkix it was v easy. So it clearly is the air speed or some variation on that theme. So the question remains.

So anyone - either staff or customers - care to comment on if sit flying is considerably easier now than before or is not much difference?

anyone who thinks Christmas comes from Christianity needs to read a bit more.

Last time I was@Bedford Paul said the were goin to make an adjustment to allow for faster air. Can anyone say if its been done yet? If so anyone care to comment on noticeable difference?

i found this on believe it or not a Christian web site called lasttrumpetminsitries.org You, as a Christian, would want to worship the Lord in Spirit and in truth, discerning good from evil. The truth is that all of the customs of Christmas pre-date the birth of Jesus Christ, and a study of this would reveal that Christmas in our day is a collection of traditions and practices taken from many cultures and nations. The date of December 25th comes from Rome and was a celebration of the Italic god, Saturn, and the rebirth of the sun god. This was done long before the birth of Jesus. It was noted by the pre-Christian Romans and other pagans, that daylight began to increase after December 22nd, when they assumed that the sun god died. These ancients believed that the sun god rose from the dead three days later as the new-born and venerable sun. Thus, they figured that to be the reason for increasing daylight. This was a cause for much wild excitement and celebration. Gift giving and merriment filled the temples of ancient Rome, as sacred priests of Saturn, called dendrophori, carried wreaths of evergreen boughs in procession. In Germany, the evergreen tree was used in worship and celebration of the yule god, also in observance of the resurrected sun god.

Well I've finally flown both of the Uk wind tunnels so I thought I'd share some thoughts for those considering flying in the Uk. As soon I got back from my travels i headed to the Bedford tunnel. Its situated in an MOD (ministry of defence) research institute that is not exactly an attractive space. It reminds me of a run down science block in a comprehensive school. All this changes however once you enter the reception area. Its nicely kitted out with comfortable seating, lounges, breifing rooms, net access etc - very plush. Once i saw the flight chamber my eyes really opened up - its a monster, one enormous space. if you've only flown in skyventure tunnels you are in for a shock. Whilst Perris and Orlando are 12ft in diameter, Bedford as I'm sure you all know is 16ft in diamter, a 1/3 more space. But to me it seemed like so much more than that. It was such a joy to fly in such a large area. The wind is smooth and powerful annd I saw people free flying in little more that baggy pants and a sweat shirt. I found belly and flat flying no problem, when it came to sit it was still a little struggle to get lift needing a slightly modified position from skydiving head up flight invovling wider legs and slightly inclined back. This is the same as I had found (and struggled a bit with) in Perris and Orlando. After 3 trips on consecutive days (hey its only 35mins on the train from Kings cross st Pancras) I had fallen hard for this tunnel. The staff are very helpful and friendly. One slight annoyance is the lack of a timer letting you know how much time you have left. Paul told me he may change this if he gets enough demand for it. So if you agree please post here. Also the viewing of the flight chamber is much more restricted than other tunnels and you cant see your reflection very well in the sections that do have glass.There is a danger of the extra space, if you fuck up you may have a lot more momentum colliding into the wall. But on the other hand you have more space to stop yourself. I highly reccomend going to Lillywhites rugby section and buying a padded shirt, dont underestimate what those walls can do to your joints. Whislt at Bedford I bumped into Rusty Lewis of Orlando fame and told me Airkix (the new name for Skyventure in the UK) was open. I booked myself in straiight away. Heading off to Milton Keynes I wondered why bother? Why fly in a 12ft tunnel when you can fly in a 16ft tunnnel?Both are about the same distance from London. Get the fast train to either and you will be there in just over 30 mins.What other major city has a tunnel (let alone two) so close by?One nicer element is that Airkix is not a desolate Mod site but in a very modern shopping mall which has resteraunts,cinemas, shops and a large indoor ski centre. Like Bedford, Airkix greets you with a nice reception area and helpful staff. Seeing the chamber I missed bedford, its so tiny in comparison. My first few minutes flying time i tried some belly and back flying and had a great time but had a I thought about it I knew that Bedford was my preference. Once I started sit flying the same sturggle too kep lift occured. But not for long, i felt the power go up and then I was flying as comfortable as on a skydive , it was such a blast. I was exstatic. Had my body position improvd? Did the fact that I was wearing a tunnel flight suit rather than my jumpsuit (which I did at Bedford)make the difference? The staff at airkix assured me that it was the power which they claimed is far in excess of other tunnels. I dont have the techinical specs or knowledge to verify this but it certainly seemed that way. So it seems to me that (although Im not able to objectivley confirm this) both tunnel have their own advantages. Airkix seems to have more power and bedford obviously has more space. Each flyer will have to decide which aspect they prefer. But I know I will have both tunnels on my mobile phone and eventually I will be flying in whoever has slots when I want them. Im sure both will be very busy.

THere were several options to demonstrate. One would be to proviide films/ test results from the New Mexico test through the Swiss diplomatic channels that were alreay established. Another would have been to drop the bomb on a city but give clear warning for it to be evacuated. Another would have been to explode on a test site and invite the Japanese to witness it. Perhaps none of these would have worked but the fact they were never tried, despite the warnings of the sceintists involved in the project is what is so objectionable. Whilst the original bombs were not as powerful as todays bombs, they were enough to devastate an entire city so they were certainly powerful. Furthermore whilst the US only had a few, once production was set in motion and the physcial and engineerinng problemms were solved it was not difficult to make more as history has proved.

Curtis Lemay: if you go on the Strategic Air Command's web site you will see them describing LeMay as the father of SAC. The quote are attributed during a BBC documentary which have been also fetaured in their history magazine. If you read properly you would see that I would only have dropped the bomb if the peace negotations had gotten nowhere and had the power of the bomb been demonstrated before using it on civilains. Neiher of these were done. In the link provided by rickjump you will see th Japanese war cabinet was split 50/50 over whether to accept the Potsdam ultimatum. You will also see how keen the Emperor was to order a surrender. Therefore it is not an uneducated guess to presume that peace negotiqations could have got some where. But they were never attempted. Walter Brown who was the asssistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes was quoted as saying Truman agreed that the Japs were "looking for peace" and that Macarthur and Eisonhower agreed there was no military need for the usse of the bomb. Furthermore many scientists who worked on the project quote rightly wanted the power demonstrated before being used. Here is the document from the NAtional archives: Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #76. Leo Szilard sent copies of the July 3 version of his petition to the Manhattan Project laboratory at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. After discussion and debate, the Oak Ridge scientists produced two similar petitions. The undated petition reproduced below called for the atomic bomb to be "adequately described and demonstrated" before use. This petition received 67 signatures, which are listed here in alphabetical order. An article by petition signer Howard Gest, The July 1945 Szilard Petition on the Atomic Bomb: Memoir by a signer in Oak Ridge, is available online at http://www.bio.indiana.edu/Gest/ To the President of the United States: We, the undersigned scientific personnel of the Clinton Laboratories, believe that the world-wide social and political consequences of the power of the weapon now being developed on this Project impose a special moral obligation on the government and people of the United States in introducing the weapon in warfare. It is further believed that the power of this weapon should be made known by demonstration to the peoples of the world, irrespective of the course of the present conflict, for in this way the body of world opinion may be made the determining factor in the absolute preservation of peace. Therefore we recommend that before this weapon be used without restriction in the present conflict, its powers should be adequately described and demonstrated, and the Japanese nation should be given the opportunity to consider the consequences of further refusal to surrender. We feel that this course of action will heighten the effectiveness of the weapon in this war and will be of tremendous effect in the prevention of future wars. ------ Laslty the reaosn it was considered mitlatiraly unnecassry to drop the bomb was becuase Japan had been devestated and peace was seen as achievable through negotiation. So the comparison with Okinawa is utterly irrelevant. As I have said many times and you still ignore. Given the choice between invading Japan and using the bomb, yes the bomb had its merits. But this was not the only choice. Shall I say it again: THIS WAS NOT THE ONLY CHOICE. The other choice, which many sceintists working on the project favoured would have been to demonsrate the power of the bomb and then initaite peace negotations. This was not done and that is why the decision was wrong. Let me also add that Truman addressed the nation in a speech on Aug 9th 1945 he said "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. " Now either Truman was misinformed as to the nature of the target or he was out and out lying; either way it reinforces the immorality of dropping the bomb on a civilan target. Here is Truman himself effecivley condenming what actually happened. What more proof do you need?

let me say that a choice between a mainland invasion of Japan and dropping tthe bomb, I would have dropped the bom. But this a false dichomoty. Everyone mentioning this choice is ignoring the facts that the Emperor was already suing for peace and a demonstartion of the bomb could have helped that process. As General eisenhower, Supreme commander of Allied forces in europe said" Japan was already defeated...dropping the bomb was completley unnessary" Genral Curti lee May said "the war would have been over in 2 weeks". Leary, trumans chief of Staff "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender...we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarism of the dark ages". Another question I would ask is the invasion was scheduled for November, why not see if peace negotations could work out? What was the hurry? There could have been a lull in hostilities to see if the peace negotiations could have been concluded. Why was there only 3 days between the dropping of thee first bomb and the second? I can understand why Truman didnt care about Jap lives. Maybe in his situation i would be the same. but there is a difference with understandign a decision and agreeing wiith it. We who can look at events more objectively should not agree with it.

Can you define soul? i know I got soul, you should see me on the dance floor when James Brown or Bobby Bryd is playing.

The attrocities of the japanese during annd before WWII are hardly the point. Do you see one person who opposed the use of nuclear weapons (which includes many of the scientists who worked on the project) justifying the actions of the Japs at that time? No you dont. The use of the nuclear bombs did not punish those responsible for those attrocities, it targeted innocent civilians, killing more than a hundred thousand people. The truth is that Truman didnt think twice about killing so many civilans. He could have invited Japanese commanders to a demonstration of the weapon or been more specific in warning the Japense instead of the totally vague comments put out in the Postdam conference. Incidentally the Japanese wanted to negotiate a surrender but the Allies refused, demanding an unconditional surrender. So after they dropped the 2 bombs they go their unconditional surrender but they decided to keep on the Emperor to make the transition to peace easier. But guess what was the main condition the Japense wanted for their conditional surrender? Yep you guessed it keeping the Emperor. So the point of dropping the bombs was what? All those poeple died for nothing. But I guess if your a racist ass hole you can sit happy with the fact they were only Japense.

"So just because I have no religious inclination, I therefore do not have ideas, philosophies, moralities, or upbringing? Even if religion was banished completely, you would still have different sects of people... divided by country/geography, culture, split on idealogical issues (abortion being right/wrong for example), political parties. It is division between groups of people, regardless of the barrier's name (religion or something else) that causes the problems." I have never claimed that someone with no religious inclination has no philisophy. I myself have no religion but I do have a philosphy. Nor have I claimed that if we got rid of religion that there would be no conflict. What i di say is that one of the most important causes(NOT THE ONLY) of conflict is religion. Al Queada have made it very clear that they are fighting a war for two main reasons. One is to removie infidels from lands considered holy and two is try and spread Sharia law as far as possible. They encourage their foot soldiers by telling them the will have eternal paradise(including 37 virgins for themsleves) in the afterlife. All of this is clear evdience of religous motivation. Religion is the problem here. Now I dont know how many times i have to say it. I dont claim that religion is our only problem, or the only cause of conflict but it is evidently one of them and the less people accept the superstition of religion the less causes of conflict we will have. Bilvon I am glad your teachers taught you to love they neighbour. You clearly had some nice teachers. i would never claim that all religous people teach hatred. What do I claim is that the religion itself encourages conflict. Now at different points in history different followers of religion will focus on different aspects of that religion. Just becuase your teachers focused on the nice elemnts of the bible. doesnt mean others wont focus on the bits that say kill homosexuals, kill sabbath breakers, blasphemers etc. But it is in the religion itself that the problem lies. If you believe in an all powerful god that communicates with humans, than it is more likely that you will follow those that encourage violence if you believe that your masters are following gods will. Moreover the precedent is set in the bible as god frequently orders killing of mass civilians. So why would he not do so again? Furthermore Christianity teaches one must accept Christ to go to heaven. Hell awaits the non believer. So any paign inflicted on the non believer is nothing compared to what they will experience if they dont convert. This was why torture was so common when the Church ruled Europe.

The idea that religion is just an excuse for a fight that would happen anyway doesnt make sense. It implies tht ideas,philosophies, moralities, upbringing dont have consequences. If thats the case then theres no problem teaching children racism. After all genocidal terror seen in Nazi germany or Rwanda for example, was a slaughter that would have happened anyway dont go blaming racism and people brought up to hate a certain group. Most religions teah that theres is the only way to heaven. If you believe in an eternal afterlife you might not have as many problems killing and torturing in this short life if you think it will mean more people go to heaven. This is a very dangerous idea, just like racism is and it is one of, but not the only, cause of conflicts in the world today and throught history.