'Ghostwriting' the Torah? New algorithm distinguishes contributors to the Old Testament with high accuracy

I think that's the case for many writers even if they stick to one genre or form. Overtime their writing style changes.

If nobody can keep the standard, perhaps the standard is just BS.

If Samuel is inspired, then God apparently kills whoever he feels like, and whether or not they could reasonably be quilty or know right from wrong.

How do you know all this about the bible, yet miss the central point...JESUS?

What God would be God if he was not the giver of life and death? Why should any god ever be subject to his creation?

Who would ever want a God that was not sovereign or one that could be judged by man?

Nano,

In Samuel he is talking against the Amalekites. They were wiped off the map, and it has nothing to do with sins of fathers, but of their people as a whole who had taken over Egypt without even a fight. They were the Hyskos, who passed the Israelites by on their way out of Egypt...

In Ezekiel, he speaks to Israel. And you entirely eject that out of context. For verses 21 and following clearly shape up what God is driving at.

The contexts are clearly different.

But I mean what I say when I say this book is screwed up and even largely fraudulent. It absolutely HAS to be.

I drove myself half mad trying to be a "good" christian, and went around trying to find all the so-called best teachers to try to tell you how to be a "good" christian

so you are saying infanticide is justified, just so long as it isn't done against Christians and Jews?

That's the standard you use to justify this massacre.

, According to Paul, We are to believe that God judges such people based on their good intentions, without Christ at all...

I drove myself half mad trying to be a "good" christian, and went around trying to find all the so-called best teachers to try to tell you how to be a "good" christian

Many others come from that background. You aren't alone.

I'm saying God gives and God takes away. He can chose Esau or Jacob, both, or neither.

He did not have to send his Son. Mercy is never required. For if it was, it would not be mercy. Israel is punished several times for their sinful nature. God does not excuse the wicked.

He excuses Christ for he was righteous.

But if righteousness is without the deeds of the law, why have the law?

Massacring innocent children "infants and sucklings" has nothing to do with excusing the wicked. That's just murder.

Where is that? We are never judged on good intentions, but upon our righteousness, which you readily recognize we have none. Which is why we need Jesus.

Why does a Christian attempt to be good? Not because we are ordered to, but foremost because we love Christ. If God wanted people to abide by his law without love, he would have just created automatons. Not people, with wills.

Not at all. I'm saying God gives and God takes away. He can chose Esau or Jacob, both, or neither. He did not have to send his Son. Mercy is never required. For if it was, it would not be mercy. Israel is punished several times for their sinful nature. God does not excuse the wicked. He excuses Christ for he was righteous.

Yellowdart
Who is innocent

Yellowdart
Man even if sinless, is not God. He has no authority over God.

A2G
Nano, you studied and studied, but you never learn one basic thing...walking in the Spirit..

A2G
If you do that being a good Christian, is easy...

A2G
You may have tried really hard, but you missed a very simple door that makes it all very easy...

yes, I am,believe me.

You have absolutely no idea.

CHollman, you have no chance of even beginning to understand what I just said. Sorry, but that is a fact. Good luck with you judgement of God.

It's one thing to realize the damage religion is capable of but another to read a first hand account.

CHollman, you have no chance of even beginning to understand what I just said. Sorry, but that is a fact. Good luck with you judgement of God. If you do not understand what I wrote to nano, you can never understand God.

I fail to understand why all the killings of innocents was necessary and then one of the Commandments is "Thou shall not kill".

Pirouette
I am very careful as to what I will put my faith and trust in, in the Bible. The veracity of the Bible is questionable, at best.

Point being, you cannot say "Well if some of the bible is BS than all of it must be."

Which half? lol You'd have to be pretty damn selective to execute half of the bible's demands and achieve a utopia.

Point being, you cannot say "Well if some of the bible is BS than all of it must be."

For better or for worse, I think fundamentalists of all types would vehemently disagree in theory (though in practice I can tell you from personal experience that many do pick and choose sections they like and don't like and don't see this as violating their all-or-nothing principle).

Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use? Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?

Some believers have a fear of going to hell after they die, and that is their main reason for their belief in God

Atheism is also a religion unto itself. Atheists obsess endlessly about the irrationality of belief in a Supreme Being, as though they have absolute proof and can provide evidence that they are right. Unfortunately, there are some from both sides who will even murder to prove their point(s).

So if the atheist knows there isn't a god and the christian knows there is, does that mean that since both can't be right, neither actually knows, so the term knowing isn't correct and we should leave it to science.

So if the atheist knows there isn't a god and the christian knows there is, does that mean that since both can't be right, neither actually knows, so the term knowing isn't correct and we should leave it to science.

But that does not discredit the large volume of wisdom contained within Bible.

So is the bible, its not perfect, but if we all followed even half of what it says, then the world would be a utopia.

Do more for others than you do for yourself

These are a part of the Declaration of Independence, in which both paragraphs mention that all the good things we enjoy stems from the grace of God AND the Laws of Nature.

The laws of nature do not endow us with the freedoms; it is God who gives us that right.

Only God can be and is, perfect.

MY belief in a God is a choice I made long ago,

God is an Extraterrestrial.

God doesn't exist, he resorts to mocking their religion, values and even their human rights to worship as they choose

We have to make our own way in the world; the Bible is only a guideline and is, in reality, geared toward the Jewish people.

You may wonder why I believe that God is an E.T.

Unlike most of humanity, I happen to KNOW that extraterrestrials do exist.

I consider myself one of the lucky ones to see an E.T. spacecraft in the sky in 2000.

I also regard that E.T. as the architect of the Universe because He is timeless.

A couple years ago I started studying buddism and although as with most philosophies, it has its crackpots, for the most part it has helped me understand my own motivations and how my mind actually works

But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all, as well as the protection of the innocents and to condemn violence by dictatorships and despots in a country ruled with an iron hand by a dictator?

Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?

If everyone of us could be perfect and pure, we would all be candidates for sainthood.

Atheism is also a religion unto itself.

Atheists obsess endlessly about the irrationality of belief in a Supreme

In order to cross that line into atheism you must first come to the conclusion that there is no god and 'know it' for yourself.

The real Atheist KNOWS without a doubt in his heart and mind that there is no such thing as God, or ANY gods or goddesses.

You may not realize it, but you and other agnostics or atheists are exactly like those that you oppose.

@Ethelred. . . . .you may doubt my beliefs all you want. . .that's YOUR problem, not mine.

No, I did not see a UFO. . .I identified it immediately as an Extraterrestrial spacecraft that was not of this Earth.

You might prefer to never see one yourself or have anyone else see it, but it is not YOUR decision to make.

My beliefs are on solid ground, unlike yours

Creationists who believe in a ghostly entity that cannot be seen.

You may not realize it, but you and other agnostics or atheists are exactly like those that you oppose.

I tire of this conversation. I was not put on the Earth to turn your life around for the sake of your redemption.

CHollman82, you are not an atheist.

The term 'atheism' on the other hand comes from two Greek words with the compound meaning of 'no god' or 'without god.' You apparently are not there yet. Just saying... :)

i think the central tenet of most atheist thought that differentiates it from agnosticism is that they see little point in dealing with introduced concepts that aren't required to generate the phenomena we observe in existence.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them.>>

They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

The argument takes on a whole new meaning, however, when one group mocks the beliefs of another group,

and should be left alone to enjoy their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When one group resorts to tyranny and oppression over another group, everyone suffers.

One of those forms is religious persecution,

The same holds true when people who are non-believers forget common decency and attempt, in so many ways, to persecute believers.

The same holds true when people who are non-believers forget common decency and attempt, in so many ways, to persecute believers.

The point is to treat each and everyone with respect as you would like them to treat you. . .also known as "the Golden Rule".

I think there would be a lot fewer wars that way. I'm not saying that that would eliminate wars entirely, but it would help.

Ethelred - the concepts are different, and mutually exclusive.

The reason we don't revert to Huxley's simplistic and definitive version of agnosticism is because is does not envelope anything outside of the modern Christian gods.

I'm sure Huxley himself would have ridiculed numerous other sects and sets of ideas whilst holding the Christian "God" from the context of his life in a different esteem.

Agnosticism treats the concept of a creator with relative weight,

It isn't so much about not believing in gods anymore so than it is about not believing in flying pigs or how to grow spaghetti,

For those who doubt the usefulness of these texts, clear your mind and take a look at the modern world which seems to have turned away from the basic concepts presented therein.

lol
Why?

lol
Why?

Because of all the nut-jobs that come out of the woodwork anytime any article dealing with religion is posted.

The argument takes on a whole new meaning, however, when one group mocks the beliefs of another group,

and Ethelred says:
""Some beliefs are contrary to reality. Pointing this out is often falsely called mocking. Then again parody is a often a useful tool for making things clear.""

No, mocking one's religion is what it is. Pointing out your own belief as a non-believer to someone who has been steeped in his religion, maybe all of his life is essentially an invitation to an argument or worse. It's the same in reverse also.
Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in. Parody is also a form of mocking. What you consider as contrary to reality is actually what is contrary to YOUR reality, not theirs.

Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in.

and should be left alone to enjoy their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When one group resorts to tyranny and oppression over another group, everyone suffers.

Suffice to say there are no atheists in fox holes

But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all, as well as the protection of the innocents and to condemn violence by dictatorships and despots in a country ruled with an iron hand by a dictator? Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use? Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?

Anyway, MY God is an Extraterrestrial, who is so far superior to us technologically that we might never catch up without His help. Mock me if you wish, I don't really care. I have seen something far more inspiring and exciting than what is in the Bible. The Book of Enoch is also inspiring to me, there is some science in it if you read the whole thing.

However, I do believe in Extraterrestrials, simply b/c I had the pleasure of seeing one of their spacecraft flying overhead one day. And quite close, I might add.

lol
Why?

Because of all the nut-jobs that come out of the woodwork anytime any article dealing with religion is posted.

Except that this site is far more popular. Wonder why?
http://en.wikiped.../PhysOrg

Like these guys?
http://www.youtub...a_player

THIS is how we say hello to our robot usurpers (and any gods that may care to show up.)

I'm just having fun.

The argument takes on a whole new meaning, however, when one group mocks the beliefs of another group,

and Ethelred says:
""Some beliefs are contrary to reality. Pointing this out is often falsely called mocking. Then again parody is a often a useful tool for making things clear.""

No, mocking one's religion is what it is. Pointing out your own belief as a non-believer to someone who has been steeped in his religion, maybe all of his life is essentially an invitation to an argument or worse. It's the same in reverse also.
Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in. Parody is also a form of mocking. What you consider as contrary to reality is actually what is contrary to YOUR reality, not theirs.

Well Ghost, I guess that says it all. Therefore, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro brothers, and all of the murderers in history, including the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer and many others throughout history all get a free pass. According to you, they will not have to pay for their sins. If you have a son or daughter and they get raped and murdered, why, their killer will never have to pay for their crimes beyond an injection in their arm, right? Therefore, they have nothing to worry about.

Personally, I don't really care what other people believe or not believe in. I believe in myself, and I believe that we are NOT alone in our solar system and I've seen the proof already. You could try to convince me that the ship wasn't real, but it was too close in the sky to misidentify it. I know that there are people who don't like the idea that we are not alone, and there are those who, like me, are waiting for either the invasion to begin, or the historic meeting between us and off-worlders.

Sorry, reality is not subjective. - CH

Sorry, reality is not subjective. - CH

Well, even if reality is not subjective your associations with reality are subjective. Why?

Because no two peoples' associations are alike - despite identical physical input.

In fact your sensory perceptions make heroic efforts to delivery the physical as undistorted as possible.
(red is red as far as sensory function and processing is concern)

As soon as 'color' encounters your associations with it, it's like no other red someone else sees. That is called the difference in associations.
No two people enjoy identical associations.

It is similarity in gathered and stored associations(from mutual interaction with reality) than determines what human can agree to or not.

So, is that all you have to offer to this thread and to me?

You defend your stance poorly.

It's obvious you are at a loss in the face of true intelligence and the fact that my experience with the sighting of an extraterrestrial spacecraft is twisting your skivvies in a knot.

Take heart, you may find one some day, that is unless your destination is in the trash heap of the discontented.

Well Ghost, I guess that says it all. Therefore, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro brothers, and all of the murderers in history, including the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer and many others throughout history all get a free pass. According to you, they will not have to pay for their sins. If you have a son or daughter and they get raped and murdered, why, their killer will never have to pay for their crimes beyond an injection in their arm, right?

Although they're the same age, their life experiences have changed each one's reality. - P

Your reality is not the same as their reality, even though you both walk on this Earth at the same time.

You appear to be a very combative person who resorts to name calling when you cannot convince someone of your version of the truth. Too bad.

One's (subjective and unique) associations are invariant to any reality that is objective.

Otherwise words like "stubborn" can never find a use.

and the lack of having a good idea about how this all began is no good reason to start implying a "man in the sky" did it.

Sorry, reality is not subjective.

Why is physorg infested with gypsies and mystics and tarot card readers and astrologers all of a sudden?

Reality is not subjective

Look, I understand what you're saying, but the point is when someone says something like "God might not be real to you but he is real to believers" it makes me want to vomit in rage, it is a misuse of the word "real".

I feel sorry for you that you have such a limited understanding of the nature of reality. Perhaps some elementary reading in other areas of science might help you. Physics and Math (of which you have a very limited understanding in any case) are not the sole repository of knowledge.

CHollman, - go look up 'Primacy of Consciousness' and perhaps read some of Descartes writings. Help yourself understand some of the arguments by researching the arguments of Locke, Hume or Hegel. Then come back more fully informed and debate Objectivism.

Written by sociopolitical propagandists

-Too late little poet. Pandora has opened his box.

Pandora - HIS box? No Rope of Hope.

You insult yourself by pretending to have any understanding of the arguments pertaining to the nature of reality.

To others: Forget Otto's labels.

Pirouette
Obfuscation. Umpteen zillion concepts in one paragraph.
Physics, Philosophy, Neuron science, and Religion.

Creationists, aside from those who force their views on their children and others, are like everyone else in the world.

Can you apply Math or Physics to a Philosophical proposition? None of the names you mentioned would even consider rationalizing such a statement in terms of the physical sciences.

However, the denigration and degradation of Creationists and their core beliefs are wrong and is something one should not indulge in, no matter your new-found philosophy. I'm not suggesting that you are doing that, but it is a fact that many who have left their faith have become brutal towards it, which is unnecessary

and CHollman82 in his infinite wisdom says:
""There is good reason to be "brutal" toward stupidity that affects all of us...""

I disagree. Brutality, whether verbal or physical defines the brute committing the atrocity as stupid and intolerant, as well as of low intelligence, no matter his I.Q. or grade point average.
Stupidity does NOT affect all of us, irregardless of your OWN perceived definition of what is stupid. By your account, there would have been nothing to stop you from celebrating the gassing and burning of the Jews and others in the concentration camps, because you thought of them as stupid. They also were Creationists and for that reason, you would condemn them.

I disagree. Brutality, whether verbal or physical defines the brute committing the atrocity as stupid and intolerant, as well as of low intelligence, no matter his I.Q. or grade point average.

The rapture is coming, no sense worrying about fiscal responsibility.

The rapture is coming, no sense worrying about fiscal responsibility.

The rapture is coming, no sense worrying about fiscal responsibility.

or environmental protection
or population control
or preventative medicine
or social progression
or scientific research
or anything else the "religious right" isn't concerned about

kinda puts political motivations into clarity, huh?

i'm really just trolling to get a rise :D

what you think most people do to piss off their parents would need some supporting evidence if any comment on here did.

and you said yourself that "he didn't believe in any god" - so that would make him an atheist then

No, mocking one's religion is what it is. Pointing out your own belief as a non-believer to someone who has been steeped in his religion, maybe all of his life is essentially an invitation to an argument or worse. It's the same in reverse also.

Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in.

Parody is also a form of mocking.

What you consider as contrary to reality is actually what is contrary to YOUR reality, not theirs.

.I've missed your thrust and parry.

SEE? You DO admit that mocking is involved.

And where do you get the idea that ALL believers are anti-science?

Did they actually TELL you that?

And how do you KNOW all this?

Do you not understand yet that world opinion is against the oppressor

Your reality is yours and theirs belongs to them

if you mock theirs without provocation, then YOU become the aggressor.

take them out of context the way Ethelred enjoys doing

Anyway, MY God is an Extraterrestrial,

But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all,

Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use?

Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive

Fidel Castro, his late brother, Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and several other Communists, ARE ALL ATHEISTS,

Have they demanded equal justice for all?

And you're worried whether or not I have an appreciation for any harm done by religion?

Now if you quoted to me the evils of the Spanish and Italian Inquisition, I would agree with you, 100%

misanthropes to you and Ethelred,

You just can't leave it alone, can you?

Have you and all the other atheists and agnostics ever stopped to think of WHY you obsess so hard about Creationists and their belief in a God?

But those of you who are so wrapped up in your anger, I can do without.

I don't BELIEVE in that stuff, I tell ya.

You seem like a nice guy from what I've read,

But time is inconsistent and one side of our specific world will be 12 hours ahead on one side and 12 hours behind on the other side and that's a reality unto itself.

Each brain of an organism is not tied to the reality of all other brains except for the purpose of connecting with them

An atomic clock in Kansas will give you the real time there, but another clock in China will give you a different real time

Creationists, their belief in their God is based on basic reality

It has to be to avoid any inconsistencies in each individual's belief system

For a believer to have faith only in his/her religion within ONLY his.her reality and not in the real world at large would be ridiculous and counter-productive

trying to make is that Creationists for the most part(with the exception of extremist Muslims and SOME atheists

are aware that their God is unseen

written in the Bible and any miraculous events that may solidify their faith

he certainly did not have a hatred of those who were

Now I know the bully will take this apart piece by piece and out of context,

99% of this thread is repeating the word "no" to words others will have alleged you to have said.

Unfortunately, "you" includes everyone who has commented so far.

It's a wonder that they haven't banned sex also. I have heard that the Shakers did that.

The Catholic church and the U.S.S.R. and every other country steeped in Socialist and Communist ideology

However, the denigration and degradation of Creationists and their core beliefs are wrong

By your account, there would have been nothing to stop you from celebrating the gassing and burning of the Jews and others in the concentration camps,

They also were Creationists and for that reason, you would condemn them.

Both shared the same reality. Their realities are subjective.

it makes me want to vomit in rage, it is a misuse of the word "real".

Being born a Christian and into a Christian family means nothing if the person does not practice and continue in his Christian faith.

I see that I am wasting my time answering your diatribes against me and I will never be able to get you to have a change of heart.

You obviously feel persecuted by Creationists and I will no longer play your game.

Chicken. I have done that. Changed peoples attitude, at least a little. Of course to do so you would have to change YOURSELF first. Reason and rational discussion is needed to change the minds of others.

Which is why CHolman and even Otto are not going to change minds. CHolman looses his temper and Otto is all over the place on top of being just plain over the top

Which is why CHolman and even Otto are not going to change minds. CHolman looses his temper and...

I accept your constructive criticism.

Otto is all over the place on top of being just plain over the top

Their PERCEPTIONS of reality are subjective.

So I now see what the true agenda is... - Piroeutte

An atomic clock in Kansas will give you the real time there, but another clock in China will give you a different real time

Sorry, dude. I don't know what your agenda /really/ is, but we aren't going to magically start respecting religion more, just because some OTHER people /might/ be overreaching in their vitriol. Yeah, sure, I go over the top about my disdain for religion from time to time. But that's on the internet. I discuss things here so that I don't have to in real life. No one wants to hear it; even most 'agnostics.' Atheists are the ones that are more often oppressed. Any statement otherwise is just patently false.

Without associations perception is not possible.
The origin of all associations is physical.
The origin of all perceptions is nonphysical or if you will, the merger of two or more associations can not take place outside the brain.

Damaged senses do not distort information. 'Damage' can add or subtract to information. This 'adding' or 'subtracting' is called 'distortion'. Information can neither be created nor destroyed.

When you find the origins of your associations you find the meaning of perceptions. And your perceptions need at least two associations to exist. And what does reality need? Dunno.

If not only Moses, then who else of his contemporaries would have had the knowledge to write the Torah? I understand how Moses may have dictated to someone else of his tribe the words to put down, but WHO were they?

Maybe I missed something

in the Pentateuch. Is it possible that Moses or whoever the other authors were, may have used earlier texts by Enoch to add to the Pentateuch?

Music imitates the truest of agendas - there is no need for reading, writing and speech.

Without at least one of your five senses providing information about the outside world to your brain you wouldn't know anything or be able to form associations at all. - CH

Can you solve a quadratic equation with song? Or defend yourself in court with a snappy tune? - O

Make up your mind... - CH

Perception is the physical act of your sensory organs collecting information and relaying it to your brain - CH

you need NO prior knowledge for this to work, the first time you open your eyes as an infant you see, without ever seeing before. - CH

Skultch
You see Pirouette's 'plate'. Mere commentary will not make the plate's contents palatable.

Sensory perception is a prerequisite of forming relations between the knowledge that those senses provide. - CH

I think we still have things to learn from each other - Skultch

Can you solve a quadratic equation with song? Or defend yourself in court with a snappy tune? - O

The answer is yes.
A song is pressure and density fluctuations - quadratic expressions of any order.
Your court plaidoyer is sound. A good plaidoyer is 'music' to any jurist - just not 'music' in conventional usage.

Perception is the physical act of your sensory organs collecting information and relaying it to your brain - CH

(Physical=shape or form of energy)

The physical is the act on your senses. Your senses simply shaped the physical to a form capable to be send to the brain. Once the physical arrives in the brain shaped by senses to a form the brain is able to process, the brain compares this physical (energy shape) to other physicals store in the brain. The matching of two stored physicals (associations) is the perception of the original incoming signal.

Also, if there was NO Jewish history with Solomon, David, and even Yeshuah,

then could it be that there is no such thing as ANTI-SEMITISM, because there were no Jewish Semites, only Arab Semites?

In the Bible, Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, both of the same father and different mothers, as you well know.

Sensory perception is a prerequisite of forming relations between the knowledge that those senses provide. - CH

The senses are prerequisites for association. Two or more associations form perception. Perceptions are 'knowledge'.

.1)Physical ->.2)Senses ->3.)Association ->4.)Perception ->.5)"Knowledge"
There. Much better.

I think we still have things to learn from each other - Skultch

Yes. Few close themselves to openness.

There is actually a loop, but I can't express that well in text. - CH

"Uh huh.... "- O

You're one of those wierdos that believes the story of the Native Americans not being able to see European ships... CH

lol
I have met many people. Over 40,000 personally.

Only three is where I did not have a key to open them.

lol
I have met many people. Over 40,000 personally.

But whos counting.

Only three is where I did not have a key to open them.

My arent we perceptive. I am starting to get where youre poetic license originates. Indecipherable does not mean superior. Poet.

Maybe if you expressed yourself a little less cryptically we would be able to plumb your lack of depth. That would be a shame wouldnt it?

lol = lack of license?

I am pondering not posting this. Yes or no? Is this really any of my concern? Who am I talking to? My conscience? Who cares?

"The conscious mental registration - CH

"The conscious recognition and interpretation...CH

I for one fully approve this message.

I think we've got a live one. - Antelope

Maybe if you expressed yourself a little less cryptically we would be able to plumb your lack of depth. That would be a shame wouldnt it? - O

"The conscious mental registration - CH

The "registration" can only occur with associations already present and imprinted in the brain.

How the hell do you ever get anything in your brain then? - CH

Otto?
Kudos.
You now have a following of one. Congratulations.
And you speak for this person. Do not shirk your responsibility for this lost soul. You speak for two now.

I for one fully approve this message.

I think we've got a live one. - Antelope

What is this person in search of?

Was that of any help? lol - piroeutte

NOTHING LESS THAN THE END OF ALL CRAP. This may take awhile.

Prepare to be unemployed. Crap will soon be ILLEGAL. - Antelope

@Ghost. . . .thanks for the link to Dr. Shlomo Sand's hypothesis . . . .or may we consider it as fact? So if this is the case, then Jewish existence according to biblical lore is a complete hoax and the joke's on them. Apparently, Jews are not willing to accept that and they look about ready to string the good professor up on a lamppost.

Wow...results. - P

Hush1. . . .since no one else is here. . .what do you think of a Herman Cain/Michelle Bachmann ticket?

Fine, we have both misquoted each other.

Who cares for the section of society which is comprised of "some" teenagers who arrive at their ideas (consciously or otherwise) just to annoy their folks?

You're seeking to put 'most' atheists and all agnostics into the same basket.

Atheism in of itself doesn't require "actively believing in no gods".

Am I right in saying you would call those who actively believe in no god, "hard atheists",

and those who don't believe in gods, "soft atheists"?

I would call the same two conjectures "atheism" and "agnosticism" respectively.

Thus if Huxley doesn't believe in any gods, by definition he is Atheist.

Who cares for his introduction of an appeasing, agnostic conjecture?

A fantastic way to either destroy the Republican Party or the Nation if the worst should occur and they won the election.

Orac how about you explain what your problem is?

good thing for a Mormon to win a nomination, despite my thinking it is an exceedingly idiotic religion that was created by in an intentional act of fraud much like Scientology was.

spaceagesoup
Atheism [..] doesn't require "actively believing in no gods"[..]those who actively believe in no god[..]I would call[..]"atheism"[..]

those who don't believe in gods[..]I would call[..]"agnosticism"[..]Huxley doesn't believe in any gods, by definition he is Atheist.

Atheism and Agnostic overlap - Eth

Socialist/Communist society would be quite a novelty in the USA? It would be different for a lot of citizens. Property would be confiscated from one and given to another according to his needs. Kids in high school would have no hope for Uni versity unless...blah, blah... Those kids from well-off parents who are protesting on Wall Street and other places actually NEED a taste of Communism to teach them a few good lessons.

huh? Care to elaborate?

huh? Care to elaborate

huh? Care to elaborate?

huh? Care to elaborate?

You presume way to (sic.) much.

I AM NOT A TROLL AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TROLLING. So why do you accuse me of that?

Oh, and yes, I DO believe that that the Universe is more than 13.7 billion years old, or whatever the number is. I adhere to the theory that the Universe is flat and goes on forever. If it was a closed unit like a globe or saddle-shaped, then there would be a chance that it may not be older than that figure they give us. But, until I see evidence that there is an OTHER side to this Universe, such as a wall, I will always believe that it goes on for eternity, and therefore is at least a trillion years old.

I AM NOT A TROLL AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TROLLING. So why do you accuse me of that?

Because the alternative is worse. You actually believe the crap.

Oh, the Universe does seem to be pretty flat but that does not make the Universe eternal. The
universal expansion of the Universe shows that it was once smaller than it is now. Run back in time and you get it having some sort of starting point. The time for that is 13.7 billion years or a close approximation thereof.

Ethelred

In a flat Universe, which is ONE of the theories, each galaxy and everything within it is cupped into a gravity well, right? So, in a FLAT Universe, might not all of those gravity wells serve a purpose of keeping it flat instead of folding in on itself.

Those are exactly my beliefs and, as I've said, I'll be waiting on the final data.

If the Universe started out with very little room for expansion other than the room available in the beginning,

then how is it that all the galaxies are moving away from each other.

The Universe would have to be finite in order for it to be only 13.7 billion years old.

There has to be something beyond all that for it all to keep going

and going without ant evidence that gravity will pull all galaxies back together

In a flat Universe, which is ONE of the theories,

each galaxy and everything within it is cupped into a gravity well, right?

might not all of those gravity wells serve a purpose of keeping it flat instead of folding in on itself.

And even if the Universe started from a small point before the BB,

the impetus of galaxies flying in all directions should flatten further the space that they're headed toward.

.and that space MAY be infinite and never ending.

Everything is hypothesis

Khadafy being mauled by Libyan Muslims. . .what savages. . .it's horrendous. - P

No. Each bit of mass warps space. There is no well. Its a nice turn of phrase but it can lead to incorrect thinking. 'The Earth has a deep gravity well' sounds good and is useful EXCEPT when we are talking about the shape of space.>>

And how do you know if and when the curvature occurs? - P

what does this potential curvature rely on other than infinite density and temp... -P

...and what are the signs for it?...

...and how can you tell if and when it's happening. - P

if your technology cannot SEE all the way to the end of the Universe?

You may not believe in God but you are lucky because God believes in you.

Even atheists are blessed with the Lords love and care.

God is great.

If correct, then couldn't the Universe, if flat, go on forever?

OK, so a flat space/time fabric is flat, but has the potential for curvature.

what does this potential curvature rely on other than infinite density and temp.

.and what are the signs for it?

cannot SEE all the way to the end of the Universe?