mdfalco71

I'm confused by people who say "there must be more to life than this". So I'm asking - people who believe there is, why should there be? Any psychologists who fancy having a crack at the role the idea of an afterlife plays in our psyche, happy to hear from you too.

The heart's a pump. You don't feel things with your heart (apart from tachycardia and arrest). So what can they possibly mean by "look with your heart, not your mind", for instance. All the things they separate out - heart, soul, spirit - are actually all just functions of the mind. So are these appeals to some other form of intellect anything but "Get Out Of Logic Free" cards to maintain their belief in the specialness of humankind? Thoughts welcome from all over the spectrum.

Think it was on in the 80s. A guy walked into a pub and said he was Somebody - there was a name. Nobody was surprised, even though they all knew this was a different guy to the last one who came in with that name. Guy said he'd won this guy's life in a card game or somesuch - flat, friends, local pub, everything - but that he had the responsibility to live the guy's life as he would have lived it...

Sounds mad even now, but I swear that was the set up. Anybody remember something like this? Anyone able to give me any additional details about it?

It's one of the most iconic little speeches in all of geekdom, but whoever spoke the words doesn't seem to be credited anywhere. Thing is, having just watched most of them again for the first time in a decade, I have an actor whose face I can see, and whose voice I think fits, but I don't know his name, or if it's him who provided the voiceover.

Also, a supplementary. Anyone know why the credits for story four replace Lead with Mercury in the narration?

I was just answering someone else's question when the parallels between faith addiction and drug addiction struck me rather forcibly - kids are often introduced quite young by people they trust; both sorts of dealers prey on the weak, the vulnerable and the hurt, and make them feel better for a while; as you get more and more addicted, it begins to cost you more and more to fuel your habit; the addicts themselves are often called on to bring new people in; and in extreme cases, people are prepared to kill to feed their addiction - though as yet, no drug addict has flown a plane into anything or shot an abortion doctor. So which is actually more the more dangerous - drugs or deity-faith?

Just checking my facts here - if the Moon landings are supposed to be faked, how far does the conspiracy go, according to the leading conspiracy theory? All the astronauts had to know, right? And how many at Mission Control? And what, then, really happened to Apollo 13? Were the deaths of Grissom, White and Chafee somehow tied in? Am writing a book, and would be really useful to get some idea of how far people THINK the conspiracy extended...

I'm a morbidly obese male diabetic and I appear to have blood - not exactly in my water, but afterwards. I had it checked last time this happened and they said there was no urinary tract infection. Just wondered what potential causes for this there might be...cos frankly it's freaky!

Will they thank us for our faithfulness to any of their revealed deities, or pity us our simplicity, or ponder how we could have been so technologically advanced while allowing primitive beliefs to rule our day-to-day lives, or will their reaction be something else? Just a question I've been grappling with recently - all views appreciated; the more supporting logic the better.

or can they play discs (either blu-ray or standard) from the US too? What's more, do I need a high-def TV to make them work, or worthwhile?

Thanks.

To me as an atheist, this makes perfect sense. Science has explained many things that people of faith at the time thought were the work of deities. Science today has factual explanations for many things that make deities unnecessary, and no proof of the existence of deities whatsoever. People of faith have...well, faith, which is a belief that something is true, irrespective of evidential levels. It seems obvious to me that the people who have the evidence have views with a higher level of validation, and therefore a higher level of validity. Is that fair? If not, why not?

Alright, I may be losing the plot here. How can so many people object to health reform? Are there really that many people who think HMOs and drug companies have a right to bleed them dry?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090913/twl-thousands-...

I'm an atheist, and I really want to be civil to my fellow human beings, whatever they believe. But I'm finding it harder and harder to respect the views of even moderate deity-believers the older I get.

I'm assuming this is a universal problem - that theists and believers feel the same way about atheists sometimes. So I'm genuinely asking - how does one remain respectful when the voice of reaon and the perception of evidence we have convinces us that people who feel differently about something are utterly wrong?

In a nation that accepts socialized policing and socialized firefighting, why is there such a backlash against socialized medicine? If you were being burgled, would you accept a police department that wouldn't come out to you until you'd been pre-approved? If you were in a burning building, would you accept a fire department that made you pay for the hire of the trucks, the ladders and the labor that went into rescuing you?

More to the point, would you withold the services of the police or the fire department in times of need from those who hadn't paid taxes?

If not, then what's the difference with socialized medicine? I'm genuinely asking this, from an outside perspective, having been born and raised and living my whole life in a country that has socialized medicine, free at the point of need.

They've now released the first pic of Matt Smith's outfit. What do we think?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a166168/first-pic-o...

We hear a lot about how he has the best tunes, and certainly Christian Rock seems to bear that out. But I was just wondering whether a fervent religious faith (of any kind, incidentally, not just Christianity) and a great sense of humour were mutually exclusive. I'm thinking George Carlin - uber-atheist. Bill Hicks - talked like a preacher about the 'Living God who would talk directly to you', but also embodied the idea of Randy Pan the Goatboy...Sam Kinison, former priest, kickass comedian. But who is there who maintains an ACTIVE religious faith who can still slay 'em down at the Improv? Anyone? Genuinely keen to learn...

...instead of starting with "In the Beginning..." it started with the more traditional "Once upon a time..."

Imagine a world with no TV or newspapers. Then imagine you today were charged with writing the life of President Kennedy, including his major speeches and his assassination.

Would the document you arrived at be verbatim? Would it be good enough, essentially, for you to assume you had an understanding of his meaning, his life, his death and his legacy?

I'm just curious because of course we know that the gospel-writers never met Jesus and lived AT LEAST as long after his death as we are now after Kennedy's. That being so, I'm wondering why people still put such great store in the so-called Gospels.

Just heard an interesting opinion - that the peace and contentment that some people - be they moderate or extreme - get from believing in a deity - comes at too high a price for the human race as a whole, because the potential for negative action to be inspired by faith (be it End Time believers who welcome the destruction of the planet or people who fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up in public places etc) is demonstrably too great to be allowed to continue.

I'm sure some of you at least will recognise where the opinion comes from. Just wondered what your thoughts on it were. Obviously, it's gonna be a room-splitter, but that's OK.

...and science involves a fact system?