jakee

Then it's pretty ridiculous that you find atheists who talk about science more annoying than religious zealots. First, anyone who ascribes to a particular religion does, by definition, think that everyone else is wrong - atheists and those who ascribe to other religions alike. They may not say it, but it's true. Now, if you do call atheism a belief it only exists as a stated belief because other people have already stated that god exists. If no-one had ever said that then no-one would ever have to think about atheism. It's a reaction to religion therefore it is always stated in those terms. That's why it is stated as explicitly anti-religion. But if you say that makes it more confrontational that's lazy thinking, since every major religion is implicitly anti-every-other-religion as well. Then, where atheists use science is almost always to refute a particular claim of religion. Terracentrism? Nope. Young earth? Not true. Flood? Didn't happen. Natural evolution impossible? Lol, sorry. No other way for the universe to begin? Hey, we're getting there. Now - if you say you don't mind having your beliefs questioned then you should be all over that. If person A) says 'this can't possibly happen without god' and person B) says 'actually we've done a lot of work on that and it turns out it can happen without god' then why the fuck are you getting pissed off at person B? He's a hell of a lot better than person C) who says 'you're right it can't happen without god, but it happens because of my god not your god because this old book says my god is the one true god.' Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yes, the Abrams is a great tank, and thanks to it the US has been able to... invade Iraq twice. So that was a good use of sixty billion dollars. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, that's not the central concept of your post. The central concept of your post was "Hey, here's an unexplainable scientific problem that could be solved by the existence of soul and/or god!". And it's not true. There is no science involved at all. It's fine to have questions - but in this case the proposed answer is just something you've made up. An answer that might make you feel better but has no basis in fact, cannot be derived from any theory and as such is completely useless. What Feynman would have to say about that would be "Shut up and calculate". (He may or may not have been the guy that said that, but I'm pretty sure he agreed with it.) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why would anyone do that? Why are you even thinking about it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not almost anything - everything. If you go down that line of reasoning there is nothing that is impossible, including the idea that none of us even exist. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So you go through life using a much 'perfect faith' as this guy? Religion tends to offer absolutes. It answers all the questions. How did the universe begin? God did it. Why did she have to die? God wanted it. What makes us who we are? The immortal soul. Atheism doesn't give any answers to those things. It just dismisses one (obviously stupid) answer. (Also, things that fly do not get called Nemo. That's so wrong it's hurting my brain. He's a submariner for god's sake!) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Heat. When you ask the question "where does the energy go?" in relation to anything, the answer is pretty much always heat. Decomposing biological matter creates heat. That's why you can bake a potato in a compost heap. He can make that remark that all he wants, but pretending the reason he makes it has anything to do with logic or thermodynamics is just silly. No, if you think it through scientifically it's simple. If you ignore science and think it through metaphysically (like you and Lewis) then it may well give you pause... but all you're doing is inventing stuff you want to hear, nothing more. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But you're much fonder of the 2nd. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Do you praise god for that because you think he personally orchestrates the things that happen to you, or just for creating the starting conditions that make living in the world and randomly encountering these challenges possible? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Even if you think everyone on here is dishonest or blinkered to some degree can you really not see at least a difference in magnitude between Rushmc and any other poster? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

It was a public holiday today with bright sunshine but I woke up with a slight muscle strain in my back and therefore couldn't go jumping or mountain biking. Hail Satan! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

God protected that guy. But not that guy. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Everyone's looking for an angle! Anyway Ron's a tough guy, he can take care of himself. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Being protected when things happen is an argument for the existence of God. So why did the thing happen in the first place? And, given that good people die in traffic every day, what makes you so special? What makes you think that God cares about protecting you when he doesn't care about protecting other, nicer people? Why isn't it just coincidence? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

"Things happening" is an argument for the existence of God? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But you weren't flipped by the hand of God in the first place? (Glad to hear your wife's OK.) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Then you should oppose NCs legislation, and any like it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If you'd paid any attention you'd see that lots of people have raised the issue of potential abuse of NCs legislative policy by predatory heterosexual men. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Not a problem for you but apparently a problem for many in North Carolina... So Ron was wrong? All that because of North Carolina's legislation? Damn, they really fucked up eh? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Being gullible would be believing anything you say Every time I think we've Sen the limit of how badly you don't get it you find a way to prove me wrong. You laugh at other people for getting their information from places like DailyKos even when they haven't, yet you think the article from that 'Patriot' website is trustworthy. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So the wusses who are riding the fence instead of choosing a side are only fooling themselves because they have chosen a side? This is getting complicated already! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Again, not sure you're quite following the 'Constitutional Amendment' aspect. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

These things never coalesce, they just multiply. 'Standards are great, so we should have more of them!' I think you may be confused as to how a constitutional amendment happens. But anyway, aside from the knee-jerk 'federal bad!' reaction, would it not ideally be a better situation if citizens of all states had the same opportunity to help decide who their national candidate for a federal position would be, rather than some citizens having it and some not, by fluke of geographical location? (I also thought John Oliver had a good point - don't complain about primaries now, because you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Remember how much you dislike {if you dislike} the primary system once the election's over then start complaining about it, and then you'll have 3.5 years opportunity to get something done.) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

To be fair, in that scenario it doesn't matter what the device is (smartphone, purpose built GPS or even paper map) she's just using it wrong. A smartphone is fine if you use it like you should use any other gps - enter the destination before you start driving, put the audible instructions on and have a mount for it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I don't think Jcd missed that, I'd say he thought the nature of the irony was obvious enough that he didn't need to spell it out... Do you want to have an ideagasm?