beowulf

You have that right! It's amazing the way some of the people here seem to think it's ok to redefine words to make their belief sound more resonable then they actually are. They seem to confuse fact with opinion and evidence with arguments.

Do you think the conversation would be different if Bin Laden had been killed by a cruise missile instead of a SEAL team? Would it not be considered an assassination? I personally don't care how they killed him.

There is no faith in atheism. Simply disbelief. And with out any scientific evidence it's easy to disbelieve.

What is weak is the claims that any god exists at all. All you have are weak arguments with no supporting evidence.

Really? forty- two gods and the two truths, eh? Did you even ever comprehend the damning nature of the Law? Did you even ever comprehend that Christ can save you from that damnation? How about that for two truths? But only one God... Did you ever comprehend that maybe Islam is correct? Did you ever comprehend that maybe the Hindus are correct? There is no evidence of any damnation to be saved from or that there is any god at all.

Now that makes sense! Except for the crashing part. They wouldn't actually use the OS on the hard drive. They would most likely make an image of the hard drive and either write it to a different hard drive, hook it up to another computer as a slave drive or have software that can mount the image itself. Then work at figuring out the password used to encrypt the individual files or the entire hard drive. Well that is how I would approach it.

Why would you consider Windows XP to be worse then 95? The two absolutely worst Windows OS's are Melinnium and Vista. If he were running Windows ME then he was really stupid!

My first log book.

This is old news. They must have just watched that old hacker movie, War Games. Brute force password attacks have been around for a long time. Customizing a dictionary is one of the oldest tricks. BTW if it were my encrypted hard drive it would take them forever to decrypt. I would use a randomly generated password of at least 8 characters or better.

I would think a full face helmet would be sufficient.

I have never seen any advertising saying that any of the skydiving helmets will protect you in any way at all. If you were to remain conscious during the scenario you specified it would be sheer luck. Even with the best helmet available your chances of living through a plane crash are very slim. It's not a scenario that should really be considered when choosing a helmet.

I expect my helmet to hold on to my audible altimeter and keep the wind out of my eyes. If it keeps me from getting a bloody nose then that is a bonus. I jump a Factory Diver. Where do you get your expectations from?? No where is anyone saying that skydiving helmets will protect you from serious injury.

I have read the Bible but not the Koran. The older I got the more skeptical I became of the Bible. It just didn't make sense as the "Word of God" and it increasingly made more sense to see it as a mythology.

Would anyone be able to agree on what the "greater good" is? My opinion some politicians do try to do the right thing, but if they did all of the time they wouldn't remain in office for very long. Otherwise they mostly do what they need to do to stay in office.

How do you know that this is true?

NO, they are not same thing. This is not always true either. The pulsar that BillVon mentioned earlier does not send out pulses from the result of a mental process. Dr. Werner Gitt is full of shit and is misleading you. Why do you think the "Answers in Genesis" people is reliable information source?!

No a logical argument is simply that an argument. It is not a form of evidence. How valid your argument is depends on it's supporting evidence. In the case of the Christian God there is no supporting evidence. All you have is an argument for the existence of God. No evidence. Your argument has no evidence to support it. I was speaking of information. Information has to come from somewhere...just like matter. "In the beginning was information." - Dr. Werner Gitt BTW if you really were speaking of information then maybe you should specified "information" instead of "logical argument". Other wise it makes it look like you are changing your story when you realize you are wrong and not wanting to admit it. Just a suggestion.

No a logical argument is simply that an argument. It is not a form of evidence. How valid your argument is depends on it's supporting evidence. In the case of the Christian God there is no supporting evidence. All you have is an argument for the existence of God. No evidence. Your argument has no evidence to support it. I was speaking of information. Information has to come from somewhere...just like matter. "In the beginning was information." - Dr. Werner Gitt That is a lot of very poor and misleading logic. Information is not an entity. It really is amazing the amount of flat out lies and misinformation being used to support a predetermined conclusion. The "Answers in Genesis" people are misleading you.

No a logical argument is simply that an argument. It is not a form of evidence. How valid your argument is depends on it's supporting evidence. In the case of the Christian God there is no supporting evidence. All you have is an argument for the existence of God. No evidence. Your argument has no evidence to support it.

I asked sincere questions. Can you give me an example of evidence of something not existing? Your argument is that to dismiss god there must first be evidence that god does not exist. So I need an example of evidence of something not existing. Why do you think there is a need for evidence of something not existing to conclusively say it doesn't exist? I am using your logic.

OK, I have no problem with what you believe either way. I have no problem with your being unable to accept other's opinions and beliefs. I simply think that there's more to the world than what I can detect with my 5 senses. The electromagnet spectrum is one good example. I simply think that one can believe anything one wants...who am I to tell him he's wrong? I simply believe that too many people only see one side of things and refuse to consider other sides...close-minded, if you will. ...and to repeat once again, there has never been any evidence they DON'T exist. God, unicorns, 11 dimensions...can;t prove any of it one way or another. (Kallend, the mathmatics doesn't prove 11 dimensions actually exist. You gotta couple the math with observation.) OK, Can you give me an example of evidence of something not existing? Why do you think there needs to be evidence of the non existence of something? You're being irrational with this.

I think this very poor logic. Say your are standing at the front door of your home getting ready to open the door. Using your logic you could imagine all sorts of things happening or existing on the other side of that door. There could be a masked robber on the other side waiting for you to open the door so he can shoot you. You have no proof of the robber being on the other side of that door. The robber could be there but, on the other hand, he may not. Up to here, you're good to go. That's all the statement tells you. But then you had to extrapolate it out into a follow-up action and blew it. What you do next it up to you. What I would do is not relevant to the statement. But to answer your question, I'd open the freakin' door and go party...been doin' it for years. Right, me too. My point is it's not realistic nor does it make sense to believe there is a god or unicorns just like it's not realistic to believe there is a robber waiting inside your home if there is not evidence support it. And in the case of God or unicorns unlike robbers there has never been any evidence they even exist anywhere.

If you want to put it those terms, then yes. Just to note: My post was intended simply to point out that there is always more than one way to look at things...other points of view. It was generated by those who stand on the concept of, "I don't believe in God because there is no proof that he does." To those who blindly got off on the idea that I was stating a belief on God, or not, you missed the point entirely. Reading comprehension is your friend...embrace it. Then I don't understand why any rational person would believe in God. If you believe in god then unicorns should be equally believable.

I think this very poor logic. Say you are standing at the front door of your home getting ready to open the door. Using your logic you could imagine all sorts of things happening or existing on the other side of that door. There could be a masked robber on the other side waiting for you to open the door so he can shoot you. You have no proof of the robber being on the other side of that door. The robber could be there but, on the other hand, he may not. So do you base what you do next on the robber existing and call the police? You have no evidence of a robber being there. No broken windows, the door is intact. As in the case of God or unicorns, no one has ever seen either and lots of things have been attributed to gods that have been proven wrong. So do you see how poor that logic is?

Sorry you don't get it. Sorry you think of my post in terms of "rationalization". It takes an open mind to understand other points of view. Again, without evidence, you can't assume anything is OR isn't there. - You have no proof of X? X could be there but, on the other hand, it may not. Pretty simple concept. Here we go with the BS misdirections again. *sheesh* OK, I'll play your silly game today. God can't be proven to not exist so why don't you believe in God? There you go with the "rationalization" misunderstanding again, but to answer your question, Yes. "My farts smell like roses therefore there must be a god." How's that? By your logic then God is equally as likely to exist as a unicorn. I can agree with that.