I hate to stir anything more up but I can't resis

---

you could have used a different form of distraction.... sigh

Originally Posted By: HCl[Speaking of which, does thor yet have any concrete evidence to support his "WMDs were trucked out of Iraq just before the invasion" theory? The movement of trucks alone is not very convincing, unless your mind is made up a priori.] It's out there if one cares to look...and if one hasn't made up their mind "priori" that WMD did not exist. As I said before, such folks will most likely have to be gassed themselves by the WMD in question before they accept the truth of it...and then only maybe.

Originally Posted By: CiderThey actually used an extensive network of subways to move the WMDs. Actually, it was trucks and commercial passenger aircraft moving the WMD to Syria...confirmed by a Syrian military officer who has since defected. The pilot of said aircraft even wrote a book about it...but with our liberal media who has lied themselves into a corner concerning their insinuation that our government lied over the issue of WMD in Iraq, they aren't exactly giving the book much press-time.

Originally Posted By: JapanFan14you could have used a different form of distraction.... sigh He wouldn't get as much attention that way.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: CiderThey actually used an extensive network of subways to move the WMDs. Actually, it was trucks and commercial passenger aircraft moving the WMD to Syria...confirmed by a Syrian military officer who has since defected. The pilot of said aircraft even wrote a book about it...but with our liberal media who has lied themselves into a corner concerning their insinuation that our government lied over the issue of WMD in Iraq, they aren't exactly giving the book much press-time. Sources? And one or two people saying it was true isn't enough to constitute strong evidence alone.

whatev.

You have a very low standard of proof for that which you want to believe. A Syrian defector. How many Iraqi defectors turned out to have given completely false information on Iraq's weapons?By "liberal media", do you mean journalism that has some sort of standards?I am coming to understand how the religious mind functions. "It's out there", eh? The fact is you have no good evidence, but yet you are 100% convinced.

ew you remind me of my cousin. stop.

Is he cute?

he was adorable. I loved him to death.

forget it.

Originally Posted By: HClYou have a very low standard of proof for that which you want to believe. A Syrian defector. How many Iraqi defectors turned out to have given completely false information on Iraq's weapons?OK...your turn. How about some proof of what you say? Quote:By "liberal media", do you mean journalism that has some sort of standards?In a manner of speaking...their agenda is their standard. Quote:"It's out there", eh? The fact is you have no good evidence, but yet you are 100% convinced. I have good evidence. You have yet to look for any. Quote:I am coming to understand how the religious mind functions.You haven't the first clue.

Originally Posted By: HCl

I am coming to understand how the religious mind functions. "It's out there", eh? The fact is you have no good evidence, but yet you are 100% convinced.

What the heck did his post have to do with "religion"?

The uncritical acceptance of ideas that are backed up by little or no evidence, often motivated by the ideas' falling into line with an already-held ideology, or just because the ideas cause happy feelings.I'm sure there's a good noun for "religious belief" or "uncritical acceptance thing", but I can't think of it at the moment.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: HClYou have a very low standard of proof for that which you want to believe. A Syrian defector. How many Iraqi defectors turned out to have given completely false information on Iraq's weapons?OK...your turn. How about some proof of what you say?You want me to prove that there were no WMDs in Iraq that were trucked into Syria? Okay, after you prove there's not a Loch Ness-like monster living in Lake Superior. Originally Posted By: thorBy "liberal media", do you mean journalism that has some sort of standards?In a manner of speaking...their agenda is their standard.[/quote]From where do you get your information? Do you claim to have found an unbiased source of news? Or are you talking about the fair and balance Fox News? Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: HCl"It's out there", eh? The fact is you have no good evidence, but yet you are 100% convinced.I have good evidence. You have yet to look for any.What can I say, beyond, put up or shut up? Stop sitting on your evidence and share it.I have not found any plausible evidence, and yes, I do know how to use Google. You're making a claim? Then back it up, unless you realize that you're full of beans. Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: HCl"I am coming to understand how the religious mind functions.You haven't the first clue.Read my previous post and you will understand.

Originally Posted By: CiderMmmm, I've had a few questions about how evolution was able to cause certain things. The only one I can think of is how the two sexes came about, since life, as far as I'm aware, started without sexes. Figured I'd ask you since you said you've done quite a bit of researching of topics dealing with evolution. Hey Cider, just to let you know that I haven't forgotten about you. I have actually read very little on the evolution of the sexes but you've got me thinking about it now. I've been doing some research and I plan to continue doing so until I can offer you a good reply.

Originally Posted By: HClI have not found any plausible evidence, and yes, I do know how to use Google. Try Wikipedia next time... ...then track down the cited sources for yourself and try as hard as you can to disprove them all. (This should be amusing!)

Originally Posted By: HClThe uncritical acceptance of ideas that are backed up by little or no evidence, often motivated by the ideas' falling into line with an already-held ideology, or just because the ideas cause happy feelings.I'm sure there's a good noun for "religious belief" or "uncritical acceptance thing", but I can't think of it at the moment. And you are equating "uncritical acceptance of ideas that are backed up by little or no evidence" with religion? Man...you are about the most prejudiced person I have come across in years.I'm sure there are no non-religious people anywhere in the world who are ever guilty of "uncritical acceptance of ideas that are backed up by little or no evidence". And I'm sure you're not one of them.

HCI is not saying that uncritical acceptance of ideas is the sole realm of religion, he is saying that religion falls right smack in the middle of it. As does a belief in aliens rectally probing farmers and witches putting curses on people. Religious beliefs are passed on over generations by word of mouth and people add and take away what they want and interoperate how they wish it to be, yet it is always seen as the absolute truth. If I told you that a fairy fixed my computer one evening, you wouldn't believe me, but you believe it when someone, 2,000 years ago, says that he saw a guy walk on water. Why?

Originally Posted By: CiderMmmm, I've had a few questions about how evolution was able to cause certain things. The only one I can think of is how the two sexes came about, since life, as far as I'm aware, started without sexes. Figured I'd ask you since you said you've done quite a bit of researching of topics dealing with evolution. Hey Cider,I e-mailed Russell Glasser from The Atheist Experience, a small cable access show in Austin, Texas. He replied to me with this: Originally Posted By: Russell GlasserBob,Have you come across this article, by any chance?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexA book I would recommend highly is "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley. You might also find this article helpful:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_QueenHere's my quick, crude layman's understanding of the process, and it could be way off: 1. Species started out asexual. 2. Some individuals developing a mechanism for transferring DNA to others and partly replacing strands in offspring. 3. This is advantageous because it can provide disease immunity through diversity. 4. DNA trading becomes commonplace. 5. Some members of the species "specialize" by evolving features that lead to better DNA transference. This is expressed as a gene which is either expressed or not expressed randomly in each individual. However, members with the gene are still able to bear their own young. 6. As this gene proves advantageous, co-evolution occurs. Species evolve traits which further specialize based on the gene. Members with the "male" gene expressed (i.e., the one which improve the ability to "send" DNA) develop features that piggyback on the original feature (basically what we now know as the Y chromosome) which further specializes for that ability. 7. Meanwhile, individuals without the "male" trait evolve features that make them good at receiving DNA. 8. At some point, males lose the ability to bear young because it is now superfluous. The now have a niche where they only pass DNA on through other members. 9. Note that this occurred fairly early in the evolutionary tree, in a branch that was even before the animal kingdom. 10. Note also that there has been some reversion, and that some advanced species don't necessarily require a male. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParthenogenesisOne final note: if you've been watching the show through clips on YouTube, you might not be aware that the entire episodes are saved exclusively on Google Video. See the archive section at http://www.atheist-experience.com for more information.-- If you did not like the writing style in this message, then you will almost certainly not enjoy my blog, which is at:http://kazimskorner.blogspot.com I hope this helps answer your question, I personally found it fascinating.