Pre-ordered it from Amazon.

Considering where I live and though it might take a while to get to me. ♠

I find it almost comedic how lots of the internet seems bound together in the unanimous opinion that no matter what happens in politics, or who wins, or whatever, nothing will change. I look at the last 8 years, and I see a LOT of change. While the fundamental problems with the American government won't be solved anytime soon by somebody working inside the system, like Obama, that doesn't mean that everything is going to stay the same.

I find this concept of "nothing changes" not only pessimistic, but stupid.

Pointless thread fails.Dnadolny

I second this!

Was there not a point at which the Flash was able to move at the speed of light? If so...Flash. I guess second would be the Road Runner...just because he looks like he's going a fair bit faster than Sonic.

But maybe one step in Sonic's world is a football field in the Looney Toons world....

[QUOTE="Termite551"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Meh, 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' are terms which I don't really like, and would just avoid using altogether.MetalGear_Ninty

Indeed.

Saying 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' is like saying 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. If you see the strong atheist as the person who is SURE there is no God, and the weak atheist as the one who is leaning towards there being no God, then you would be better off calling the 'strong atheist' an atheist, and the 'weak atheist' a defacto atheist or atheistically leaning agnostic. 

I replace belief with a lack of it. 

You don't need to replace belief with belief, just like you don't need to replace water with water once you drink from a water-filled cup. You can put other things in there too ya know. I could put juice, soda, wine, beer, etc. Since all of those are liquids that fit into that cup, I can put any one of them in. Or, I could simply not put anything in there and be happy with it. 

I hope that made sense. 

[QUOTE="Termite551"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

 

I wrote a rather long reply to this, but I think the answer to your post is much simpler than the thing that I initally wrote up.

I am an atheistically leaning agnostic. I recognize the fact that God could indeed exist. I am fully aware that if you remove all of the Christian values and interventionsim, the chances of a God setting off the spark of the universe are probably around 50/50. However, as already stated, there is no evidence for God existing. There is also no evidence AGAINST there being a God, but it is silly to think that lack of evidence that something does not exist constitues evidence that it does. 

 

I see it as taking a larger leap of faith to believe in the existance of God, especially the Judeo-Christian God, for whom the 'evidence' consists purely of things such as the Bible, than to believe that there is no God, based on the lack of concrete evidence that he exists. 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Meh, 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' are terms which I don't really like, and would just avoid using altogether.MetalGear_Ninty

Indeed.

Saying 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' is like saying 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. If you see the strong atheist as the person who is SURE there is no God, and the weak atheist as the one who is leaning towards there being no God, then you would be better off calling the 'strong atheist' an atheist, and the 'weak atheist' a defacto atheist or atheistically leaning agnostic. 

I wrote a rather long reply to this, but I think the answer to your post is much simpler than the thing that I initally wrote up.

I am an atheistically leaning agnostic. I recognize the fact that God could indeed exist. I am fully aware that if you remove all of the Christian values and interventionsim, the chances of a God setting off the spark of the universe are probably around 50/50. However, as already stated, there is no evidence for God existing. There is also no evidence AGAINST there being a God, but it is silly to think that lack of evidence that something does not exist constitues evidence that it does. 

Meh, 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' are terms which I don't really like, and would just avoid using altogether.MetalGear_Ninty

Indeed.

Saying 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' is like saying 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. If you see the strong atheist as the person who is SURE there is no God, and the weak atheist as the one who is leaning towards there being no God, then you would be better off calling the 'strong atheist' an atheist, and the 'weak atheist' a defacto atheist or atheistically leaning agnostic. 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isNTWrightfan

This is one point that I have never seen a creationist like yourself elaborate upon. Even if you throw the Judeo-Christian God out of the window and stick to a God that simply put the universe into motion, the chances of a God like being existing are still 50/50. 

How could even pure Atheism, which is based on science the occasional leaps of faith, be more faith based than Christianity, which is based PURELY on faith? 

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

Well, the only reason you believe in science is because you read what somebody else wrote. You didn't actually do the science with them. It's really not that different than believing in the bible. Majority of what you read in books or see on T.V. you'll never take the time to test or replicate for yourself. So, there is a faith involved in science. And science takes many many years of retesting itself. What is believed now may not be 20-50-100+ years from now. The only problem most people have with religion is that it's static and slower to change. Anyways. I'm middle ground on the issue. I don't see either side as having a winning position on the matter. Both have their purpose and fulfill a need of the human species.

Many of us forget it's diversity that makes us stronger and better equipped to handle and adapt to different environments. If we all thought the same way we'd really be limiting ourselves. IT's good that we have two sides to something, compared to one.

EMOEVOLUTION

I have a major in bio so I do have a good deal of knowledge that I have seen in action about nature.  There's also a good deal difference between science and religion.  Science aims to expand human knowledge and is always open to debate on anything that has been proven by it's method.  Religion aims to restrict man's knowledge and is closed to any debate.  Science requires you to comprehend how things work.  Science never just says this is just how it is because, it actually has proof.  Religion on the other hand only requires obedience and faith in what it says to be true even though they have no proof.  As for limiting ourselves to thinking one way, science doesn't do that at all it's open to be questioned and disproven if you have evidence.  Religion on the other hand demands obedience and conformity to a narrow minded set of beliefs that are unquestionable.

Your argument is intriguing, but all in all rather pointless. Indeed, you can reduce EVERYTHING in human society to belief, since human's are viewing the world from a point of view. It's like always looking through a fish-eye lens. You have no proof that all things in the universe do not look strangely distorted, so you make the educated guess that everything is indeed distorted looking. 

But your argument doesn't really poke a hole in Atheism, since atheism is a human construct and the only people who care about it are humans who view everything through the lens of human perspective. Does it matter to them that if you boil down their argument of "not believing" enough, they can be considered believers? No, it doesn't. Free-will can be considered an illusion, since if one was to take a snapshot of the position and velocity of all the atoms in the universe for one instant and put the data into an incredibly powerful computer, every single decision made out of "free-will" for eternity would be completely predictable. 

Does this inescapable fact somehow invalidate all arguments involving free-will? No, it doesn't. Because through a normal humans perspective, this changes nothing.