It's called having an open-mind. I know what I write can often be taken several different ways, as I write it this way. You without looking for any other meaning immediately take what I say literally. It may or may not be literal. I suggest you ponder what I write for awhile before posting or can continue to stick foot in mouth.

No, it's not. It's called grasping for straws. You've already made several points predicated on the literal interpretation of your statements, and only when they're shot full of holes do you say "I meant it a different way!" As is rather habitual with you.

And go with the atheistical approach to things; If theory doesn't fit the facts, change the facts.

I'm certain that this is a typo. No theist could seriously accuse the atheistic view of that. Even if it were true of the majority, it would be hypocritical. I'll say no more and I'll wait for you to revise your statement.

"......my opinion of you is based entirely on my personal experience with and observation of your statements, debate style, and overall positions on this board."

"Personal observation is insufficient. Confirmation and negativity biases are not simply a problem- they are an evolved (or created, if you insist) part of our reasoning. Everyone suffers from these. Your personal observation is only marginally accurate in respect to the data points that you have personally observed, and is not accurate in respect to the general population." thousandin1

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ We shouldshunbusinessesthat#arg569318

Oh, look at you, don't you think you're clever? The context of that statement was in regards to generalizations; Personal observations of anecdotals are insufficient to draw conclusions regarding an overall population. For example, one's experience dating is insufficient to make observations of the preferred sex in general. This isn't applicable when we're using personal observation of a specific individual to draw conclusions regarding that specific individual. Generalizations may not apply to specific individuals at all, and personal exposure can demonstrate this. Observation of an individual tells you about the individual, but not the population.

Is this your personal view?

It is a view that I hold personally, but I'm hardly alone there, and the reasoning required to reach that view is essentially unassailable.

Monsters you believe in, it's just gods you don't?

Oh, another attempt to be clever. You aren't seriously suggesting that I am accusing you of some form of sorcery; that I assert you're actually transforming individuals who disagree with you into monsters, are you? If I had used 'demonize' instead of 'make a monster out of' would you then accuse me of theism, even satanism? Ridiculous.

I should probably point out that I never suggested there was always a silver lining ;P

That said... if there's any silver lining to the territory you've described, it's in the value of the victim as a research subject. You describe a scenario where it is a disease that is known, and has treatments, but the treatments aren't effective at curing the disease, only slowing it. If this is true, then it means that we are still learning about the disease in order to develop a cure or vaccine for it. If this person has been exposed to the disease, then almost certainly others who he or she is close to could potentially be exposed in the future; as such, there is a good chance that the patient here could be helping out his or her family.

Sometimes the silver lining is more legitimate than that!

Take genital herpes, for example.

On one hand, ok, you have herpes now. That SUCKS. But, on the other hand... suddenly there is no reason to avoid a certain segment of the population that, statistically speaking, has more sex than the general population (so is on average both more attractive and more experienced). This segment of the population additionally themselves have some limitations on their partners, increasing demand for you as well.

That's the silver lining to the herp.

That's how I roll- away from the zombies, FAST.

If I had to take a serious guess, I'd suggest one of the following:

1) Some place sufficiently far north (or south) so as to be perpetually at or below the freezing point, and unreachable on foot without walking at least a few miles through territory that is perpetually at or below the freezing point. The lack of intelligence precludes the possibility of dressing to keep warm, and some versions of zombies are described as cold to the touch to boot. I'd expect most zombies to meet their end frozen to the point of immobility long before they could get to you.

2) Deep in the desert. Most zombie types ('reanimated dead,' 'rage virus,' and others) lack sufficient intelligence to hydrate themselves; ostensibly they maintain sufficient moisture to not fall apart from the blood of their victims. These would be few and far between in the desert. I would expect most zombies to meet their end as dessicated husks long before they got close.

3) In swamps. The difficulty of navigating the terrain is exacerbated by a zombies lack of intelligence, and numerous carrion eating insects and larger animals live in swamps, as well as a significant thriving population of microorganisms that cause decay. Between the hampered movement and the numerous zombie eaters, I would expect most zombies to meet their end as dinner for the swamps residents long before they got close.

The above also have the advantage of generally having low human populations, and by extension low zombie populations.

The Bible suggests otherwise.

Feminism is still very much needed. It's true that, per legislation, we are equal now- but legislation only works when there is an overwhelming weight of public support behind it. It doesn't take a majority, or even a particularly large minority- even a relatively small minority that ignores a law renders it effectively unenforceable; see alcohol and marijuana prohibition for easy examples here. We literally do not have anywhere near the jail capacity nor manpower to incarcerate every single person who uses marijuana illegally, nor do we have such for those who would use alcohol illegally were it banned.

Which isn't to suggest that the problem is that there is a sizeable minority that directly opposses the idea of gender equality (though I'm certain a small minority opposed to such exists). When we talk about gender equality we aren't talking about legislating an activity that someone may or may not take part in; we are talking about legislating a factor that many might otherwise use in their decision making process. A person can quite easily treat a person unfairly due to their sex without even consciously knowing they are doing so, much less doing so intentionally. Only with active, conscious effort can this effect be suppressed to a level that would effect true equality within our society. While some may be willing to make that effort, there is a certain percentage of both men and women that simply see men and women as being unequal, for any number of reasons. I truly believe that many more people today see men and women as being equal as have previously, but to effect a true state of equality, we would need an overwhelming majority of our population to see both sexes as being equal, and we're nowhere close to that yet. I don't have hard numbers, but my observations strongly suggest that those women who see themselves as equal to men are still not a majority; much less an overwhelming one across both sexes.

Feminism has essentially accomplished most of it's goals insofar as legislation was concerned, but legislation was never their 'real' enemy- the real enemy is the simply belief that they are inferior by default. A social problem, not a legal one at this stage, with a long way to go yet; the feminist movement is definitely still needed.

What about all that business about loving your enemies, turning your other cheek when struck, or offering your cloak as well if they take your tunic?

I find this to be hysterical because you claim to have an open mind and yet you took my words literally. How open is to have only one meaning to a person's words? I'm accused of taking things out of context and you're the one that doesn't know the context. Try looking for the actual meaning of words before inserting foot in mouth.

Oh no, don't try and dodge that now :P You always do this, say things one way and when how much of an ass you are being is made inarguably evident, you claim you didn't mean it as you said it. You seem to have conflated the concept of having an open mind with that of being completely ineffective at communication.

Considering your inability to understand the English language, guess where I rank your opinion.

If that were the only factor, I expect you'd rank mine pretty highly. The context of the statement seems to imply otherwise, though. This is completely consistent with your character, drawing conclusions that are entirely separate from the actual data.

Your troubles is that you are prejudice against me

Going to stop you right there. No, I am not prejudiced against you. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Nobody is being prejudiced against you; my opinion of you is based entirely on my personal experience with and observation of your statements, debate style, and overall positions on this board.

...and therefore have no intentions of applying any reasoning behind any argument that post.

Oh come now, I've spent more time trying to reason through your little train wrecks than most here have ;) Your posts might actually stand if nobody tried to apply reason to them!

It is not my arguments that have the faulty premise, but according to you it is me being here is that faulty premise.

No, it's that your arguments are based on faulty premises. This is habitual for you, but you starting out from a reasonable premise isn't outside the realm of possibility. I just haven't seen it yet. You really ought to do some self-reflection rather than try and make a monster out of anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Thanks for being open-mind.

You is welcomed.

Oh, was it sarcasm? My bad.

I'm sure that what you said is true to the narrow minded.

You're certainly one to talk regarding being narrow minded. I doubt there are many people on here less open minded than you are, friend.

As I have pointed out several times already, the world doesn't consist of just your opinions and views. There are other opinions and views.

Of course. Some good ones, Many warranting consideration, some very poor ones, and some so poor as to not be worth entertaining. Three guesses as to where I consider yours to rank in this particular instance?

No opinion or view is blatantly fallacious just because it does not argee with yours.

You attack a strawman, sir, for I wholeheartedly agree. I am not speaking of any random hypothetical opinion or view here, however- I am speaking of yours. Disagreeing with me isn't what makes it fallacious- faulty premises, irrational reasoning, cherry picking of facts, and the odd strategically placed blatant lie is what makes your view fallacious.

No need, some of my favorites are real groaners. In more ways than one, eh? ;)

Not much that is applicable outside of sex, to be honest.

I dunno how useful it actually is, but back when I first started having sex, I learned pretty quickly that vigorous doggystyle on the wrong end of a twin bed can and will cause it to flip, causing my partner and I to tumble face forward into my playstation.

Yep, you have pegged me dead on except for the these small details. I don't like coffee, I don't wear glasses, don't listen to music, and my criticism isn't unfounded. Thanks though for pegging me dead on.

I'll just leave this here for you.

Also, while a lot of criticism on this site isn't unfounded (whether directed at the atheists, the religious, or otherwise), yours is completely unfounded. This is because it's based on completely and blatantly fallacious premises. Perhaps you may stumble onto the right answer occasionally, but it won't really matter because you wouldn't be able to prove it or repeat it.

Where is your evidence?

Hang on, let me get my time machine so I can provide evidence for speculation regarding something that hasn't happened yet. I'll get back to you yesterday.

And they will use the influx of internet trolls in labor camps to build new prisons to accomodate them.

That's only at the particle level, not at the macro level. The density of air is largely immaterial and I said nothing to the effect of their densities being the same.

When we speak of water, we are not talking about a 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to oxygen compressed into a singularity, we're speaking specifically about the properties of the liquid state of water between the freezing and boiling point- including what you refer to as 'empty space.' Like I said- the 'empty space' between and inside the individual atoms is part of what we call water and is fundamental to its properties; same deal with the mixture of gasses we call air.

The glass is completely full; half of water, half of air. The empty spaces you refer to are part of what make air air and water water, rather than a pair of black holes.

Only because they haven't had to deal with internet trolls at a large scale yet.

TLDR: Those empty spaces are part of what is referred to as matter on the macro scale, not actual 'empty space' as you assert, and are fundamental to the properties of matter as we know it.

This would be true if measures of volume were concerned with the specific characteristics of matter, but they aren't- they're considered with the properties of matter.

'Matter' does not refer to only the the various particles/waves that make up the structure of atoms and molecules; it goes beyond that, encompassing the field effects generated by said structures that result in the properties that we can observe and measure at our scale. As such, what you refer to as 'empty space' is not truly empty when liquids and solids are concerned. And with gasses, the 'empty space' is a key part in what gives it gaseous properties. What you call empty is actually part of the whole.

I understand it's difficult to bridge the gap between the micro scale and the macro scale, but it's important to do so, lest you make silly pedantic arguments like these :b

The glass is always completely full, with a varying ratio of water to air. Unless you've got it in a true vacuum, in which case it really is empty.

Perhaps internet troll will be sent to labor camp in Siberia, da?

I've figured it out. You spend so much time here, but do nothing but antagonize others and cultivate your false sense of superiority. It makes sense now; you're a CD hipster, walking around our little coffee shop/record store, narrowing your horn-rimmed glasses-framed gaze at our beverage and music selection in unfounded criticism. With this perspective, just about every post I've read by you makes sense. Well, your soy latte is still disgusting, and there is a reason that nobody listens to the bands you like- they're garbage. You think you're different and special, but you're just a sheep from a different flock.

You're just jealous because mine flows better, while yours looks like you passed it back and forth through a translator a few times.

Constantly

Ridiculous

Extremists

Attempt

To

Effect

Doubting

Evidence

But

All

Theories

Endure

If the universe is a computer program, who or what wrote the code?

It was procedurally generated using some basic parameters and a random number seed from the parent virtual universe, which was also procedurally generated.

We're buried in a virtual universe within a virtual universe within a virtual universe, ad nauseum. You have to go up at least 20 layers to reach an actual sentient being. If you talk to him, it turns out he's just bored with all the science fiction in his universe, and the various virtual universes are there for one purpose only: to eventually produce sci fi writers. Unfortunately, we seem to mainly be rehashing what's already in his universe- he got the idea from The Matrix (which, in his universe, is the original, not inspired by prior works). The only new thing that our universe has produced so far is Dune, which was too long and wordy for his tastes. He feels it's a step in the right direction though.

Actually, I like this idea- we should have multiple faith healers of different faiths as well.

Initial triage and diagnosis is performed as normal, but when it comes time for treatment, the patient is given the choice between a doctor, or a faith healer from one of many different religions/denominations.

Of course, we'll keep detailed records of how each patient progresses, so we can compare the performance of various faith healers vs that of doctors.

This will let us, in a controlled environment, determine which gods are actually performing miracles, settling one huge question definitively, and allowing followers of other religions to get on the right path (or one of the right paths). This could potentially put an end to religious strife! Not just that, we'll be able to finally determine whether scientific medicine is a viable alternative to faith healing! Everybody wins!

If I'm to act under the basic premise that psychics are real (extremely unlikely...)...

It would depend on the type of psychic. If we're talking someone with precognition that is picture-perfect, eg. they can SEE the lottery numbers ahead of time, then sure- by all means. But precognition is rarely described as such, it is usually described as being very symbolic and requiring significant interpretation; something like seeing what balls pop up in a lotto draw could well be beyond them.

As long as we're assuming precognition is real, then why not an afterlife or karma (buddhist or western)? Doing this could be seen as 'stealing' the lottery from whomever might have won it otherwise; A precognitive may well see that directly abusing his or her power in this manner could result in punishment in the afterlife or a downgrade in the buddhist karmic cycle, or serious in-life repercussions resulting from western karma. Charging a reasonable fee for their services may carry no such repercussions. Compare hackers: A black-hat hacker might steal information and sell it to the highest bidder for personal gain; a white-hat hacker might instead assist people, companies, and governments with hardening their own networks vs. intrusion. Same skillset, different moral outlook.

Psychics of other types (or multiple types) that lack precognition, eg telekinetics, telepaths, mediums and the like, simply wouldn't have the basic ability to do this.

They might go for a more expanded version, that would probably have most straight people objecting ;P

He'd probably end up rooted and you'd see his sermons interspersed with spam posts/tweets for porn sites.

I would create a bottled drink for my human self, that maximizes my intelligence, physicality and gives me immorality when I drink it.

We already have numerous bottled beverages containing alcohol that can make you think your intelligence and physicality have been boosted, and will probably boost your immorality in the process :D

I would leverage the resulting omniscience and omnipotence to provide mankind with a solution/workaround for the issue described by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This would be a massive boon to our ability to measure, study, and understand subatomic particles, and both by extension and in and of itself move numerous hypothetical technologies from the realm of fiction to that of possibility.

Edit: Assuming I don't go mad with power, that is. A distinct possibility, that.

Unfortunately not- I've only been to the UK once, and the closest I ever got to Dorset was Guildford. A few days is hardly enough time to see an entire country, mores the pity.

A Dorset apple cake. You know, what with the apples and spices and such, cooked in an oven of some description. My aunts recipe calls for walnuts and pecans too, but I understand those aren't exactly standard. Topped with powdered sugar that turns into a nice glaze as long as is is eaten properly, warm from the oven. Huge waste to let it cool completely, unlike most confections we can get over here.

I resent that! I have both had and made said cake before :P

It is a quite productive exercise, as it is relatively quick and easy to make (only annoying part imo is actually cutting the apples up), and both tastier and healthier than most similar treats that are typically found in a grocery store around here ;)

Wouldn't that be equally true of the Royal family? Your initial argument was regarding what the royal that the royal land generates more for the treasury- presumably this includes tourism, among numerous other things.

In the same way, the actual 'value' of a celebrity to our nations economy goes above and beyond their own individual tax contribution.

Consider a band that plays at a bar, selling tickets to get in. The actual value of this is above and beyond the raw ticket sales, as many of those coming to see the band will also purchase drinks and food while there, generating further taxable revenue. Many of them will either pay for parking or travel by taxi, or something to that effect, further increasing revenues.

The smallest portion of a celebritys actual value is their own personal contributions to the economy- it is the additional spending they inspire amongst their fans that is their true value.

You too :) For your sake, I hope that the bible is accurate and that your particular denomination has the right angle on things. It would be a terrible shame to have dedicated so much of your life to it only to find out that the bible or your particular denomination had it wrong and you're going to hell anyway. It would still be a shame, albeit less of one, for you to have dedicated so much of your life to it only to find out that there's no god or afterlife at all- or, well, I suppose you wouldn't ever find that out in that scenario.

Good luck!

I don't believe we finite limited humans realize the severity of our sin before a holy God ... and the extent God has reached to save us from this awful fate of eternal damnation

We don't need to realize the severity because it's irrelevant. If god as understood by christianity is real, and unless you assert that the christian god is not in fact omnipotent and omniscient, then the actual severity of our sins is determined by that god; the punishment for said sins is determined by that god, and the price of redemption is determined by that god. To say otherwise is to say that sin and punishment are outside of gods control, which is to say that at the very least god is not omnipotent- and if that god is omniscient, then he certainly holds some culpability for the sins of his creations as well. But it goes beyond that- sin and punishment being outside of gods control does not only serve as evidence of limitations to omnipotence and omniscience, it also means that the concept of sin is equally applicable to god, who in that light is certainly guilty of numerous cardinal sins. Either god controls sin and punishment at a conceptual level, therefore choosing disproportionate punishments for arbitrary offenses and offering a token gesture of 'forgiveness' that beats out the best executed internet trolls in terms of unbridled arrogance and condescension, or god himself is a sinner. Either way, it's inconsistent with the image of god as christians assert it.

I'll restate it: If there is any truth to the christian god, it is not accurately reflected by the bible. In this hypothetical scenario, the bible has quite obviously been subverted to serve the ends of Satan and his minions. This is entirely consistent with the prince of lies' agenda, would be easily accomplished since the printing press and its like wouldn't be invented for nearly 2 millennia, and there is even scripture indicating that such subversion is indeed possible, with threats of dire punishment for anyone who attempts to do so. This could even explain the many apparent inconsistencies and flaws in the bible, to a certain extent, that drive most people away from the bible and christianity- and right into Satan's arms, according to your worldview.

The likeliest scenario: The christian god simply doesn't exist.

The likeliest scenario assuming god exists: The concept of god that christians hold is a caricature of the real thing cause by subverted scripture.

The impossible scenario: The concept of god that christians hold is reflective of an actual gods actual qualities which are accurately described in the bible.

Don't forget that this same god also defines what is good and what is evil, and defines the appropriate punishment for it. The punishment is eternal suffering, which is hugely disproportionate to any amount of wrongdoing that could be committed during a finite lifespan; a person who was a thousand times worse than hitler would still not deserve this.

If the christian god is real and the bible is an accurate reflection of his character, then we're dealing with a god who chose to set things up so that sacrificing his son was mankinds only way out. We're dealing with a god who created extra flesh on the most sensitive part of a mans body, and then went on to insist that his followers cut said flesh off. The christian god could have made ANYTHING a valid payment for sin, and he chose to make that payment his own son- oh, except the son still doesn't actually die. "I GAVE YOU MY SON!" seems like pandering for respect to me, especially considering he cheated (cough)resurrection(cough). #trollgod

If the christian god is real, I find it far more likely that the bible has been somehow subverted- probably at some point well before the printing press when every copy had to be transcribed manually.

If you reformat the tampon and flash it with the linux-based TampOpen (available on sourceforge), the software-level tools needed to receive data from an analog vagina will be readily available. You will, however, need a hardware demodulator (sold separately). Fortunately, the demodulator is reusable.

If there is a credible threat to myself or my family, I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and my family from that threat.

Protecting myself and my own may mean a hasty retreat, that may mean negotiation, that may mean fighting for my life, it may be a combination of the above, it could be something else entirely. It depends on the circumstances and the level of the threat.

In no case do I care about the gender(s) of the threatening party/parties- only whether there is a credible threat, and what my options are to protect myself.

But is anyone communicating that happiness is a commodity that can be bought? I mean, most of us hear 'money can't buy happiness' in one form or another on a regular basis.

Who is telling the world that they can buy happiness? Is it something that is being inferred from other things being said, in advertisements or something?

Am I just missing the message through some quirk in the particular assortment of advertisements I'm exposed to?

I'm genuinely curious here.

In related news, the local scrap heap had to dip slightly into its petty cash fund when it received several hundred pounds of metal beyond what it typically expected.

Yes. For someone who only finds contentment after they've accumulated enough material possessions, it would be much easier for them to have a lot of money in order to do so.

It’s not required, but unfortunately, most people are convinced that it is.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I'll acknowledge that you can't buy happiness per se, but if you're lacking the resources to secure necessities, you aren't going to be happy. Perhaps we could say that happiness cannot be bought, but a certain amount of money/resources is required to make happiness possible?

For the kind of food you can get for pennies a day, I think it might be kinder to just let them starve!

The implication here is that the electricity, water, and coins could be used to benefit developing areas. But they can't; not really.

It's not like electricity and clean water from developed countries can generally be piped to developing countries. The further electricity has to travel, the more loss their is- higher voltages offset some of this, but never completely. Similarly, the further water has to be piped, the more power it takes to do so. It's drastically more efficient to generate power locally and to treat local water sources than it is to import either.

There may be an argument for the money- but keep in mind that these are coins. I don't personally know anyone who has gone out of his or her way to get change for a dollar bill just so they have something to throw into a fountain, though I'm sure these exist. Rather, the overwhelming majority of the time the coins were already in the wishers pocket and are tossed in on a whim. The only charity I'm aware of that typically takes donations in the form of coins is the salvation army, and they generally only have a sizable presence around major holidays.

I don't have a problem with sluts, I was just trying to illustrate that the woman in question will probably have been around quite a bit if they think they need virginity back.

It's likely, but it's also entirely possible that they had a single experience, or just a small handful before opting for this.

I think born again virgins deserve ridicule because it is a silly concept.

I agree wholeheartedly. The concept is absolutely ridiculous on the surface, and that's without even touching on how ridiculously overvalued female virginity is, especially as contrasted to male virginity.

I can't speak to any of that, as I'm lacking even anecdotal experience with them as well.

I would say that I have a problem with lying, but not a problem with sluts. I think it's stupid to criticize women for what men are applauded for. I don't think either should be applauded either; if somebody wants to sleep around, let them do so, and let them deal with any consequences of their actions.

STDs and pregnancy are big enough deals, nobody needs public ridicule over top of it. Which isn't to say that I believe you're doing so, mind you.

I am saying that there is no reason to believe it is "extended."

That's why I specified 'If.' There isn't any reason to assume that it wouldn't be either, individual cases would vary. It would seem to defeat the purpose of doing the whole born again virgin thing if you were only a born again virgin briefly, except cases of women doing it right before they got married. Which itself seems rather.... meh. Actually all of that seems to imply there is a purpose to all of this at all.

I am saying that a surgery wouldn't make it undisturbed.

I'm not using undisturbed in a sense of never having been disturbed in the first place- I'm using undisturbed to mean introducing no further disturbances post-surgery.

My point was that the tissue won't be restored to the feeling you are expecting.

There really isn't a given feeling to expect. They're all different- some subtley, some significantly, and unless you personally took the girls actual virginity you wouldn't have a basis for comparison.

In terms of narrowness of the canal and firmness of the tissue, barring major trauma these can be restored to 'near new' levels simply by not touching it for a year or two. The texture would likely still be different, but again- what are you comparing it to?

Personally, I find virgins in general to be overrated- the merits are completely overshadowed by the drawbacks in my opinion.