Bikerman

Err, what do you mean by 'biblical times'? Given that the OT was written somewhere around 500-900BCE are you saying that Dragons and Giants existed then? If so, I'll bet you a dollar they didn't....

Ahh...well, that can be done but you will need to export the original images from the pdf document and I don't think Reader allows that option.Basically you need to get at the image in some format - jpg most likely - and then stretch it using a simple graphics app. To extract the jpgs from the pdf google and you should find some apps to help.

That looks OK to me....the core should appear rotated 90 degrees and will them print out the same - is that not what you want?

The score is actually a graphic image encapsulated in adope postscript (most probably).What you need to do, therefore, is rotate the image. Not knowing the exact image and which version of adobe you are using, it is difficult to give specific advice. Is the document protected, for example?

Not only can you not see the start and end of 'creation', you can't imagine how big that creation is. We can use metrics, and I can tell you that the observable universe is about 100 billion light years in diameter, but actually getting a mental handle on that is, I think, beyond us. Think of the smallest, most insignificant 'spec' that you can, and you are still nowhere near it.Does it not strike you as odd that a creator so concerned with humanity would create a universe in which humanity is an infinitessimal mote? Maybe he thought we might get bored?

Exactly. Even the most 'militant' atheist (and I am no shrinking violet ) isn't calling for a ban on religion. Even the hate-figures with many theists - Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris and (now sadly missed) Christopher Hitchens - never suggested that theists should be treated differently.This all comes back to whether you perceive atheism as a belief. If you do then it is easy to see how people could do things, in the name of that belief, that most people would judge immoral. We have plenty of examples over history. To slightly paraphrase Steve Weinberg:"With or without balief (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes belief (religion).(He used the word religion, but I think you can substitute any non-rational belief system - by which I mean any belief which is either unsupported, or is actually condtradicted by evidence.)The fact is that atheism isn't a belief. To quote, again, "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby'. Atheists do not have a defining belief, characteristic, world-view, or anything else in common. Their only common link is that they don't believe in God(s). This is something you will see continually ignored, even by moderate theists. Atheists are always taken to be scientific materialists. Whilst many are, many are not. I know several atheists who have beliefs I find ridiculous and naive - in fact there are many atheists I would not wish to be associated with, but that should be no surprise - no more surprising than saying that some people who say they believe in God do nasty things.The real threat that atheists like Dawkins pose is not violence or discrimination - it is that they present a coherent, well argued criticism of religion, based on evidence which no theist can deny. Churches are like any organisation - a great deal of energy is expended in maintaining the organisation and for many this becomes the main function. Atheism is an existential threat to religion in the west - not because atheists are forcing anyone to do anything, but because when confronted with the real truth of what their religion asserts, and the real evidence for those assertions, many people just cannot go along with it. The reason that theists in particular find this threatening is that it is new to them. Anyone's choice of politics, football team, clothes, car etc is subject to criticism. We have all been the subject of some mickey-taking for choices we have made at some point. Religion was always different. People had to 'show respect' for religious belief. What the 'new atheists' have done is say 'why should we?'.If you think about it, the notion of 'respect for beliefs' is wrong-headed and confused. Does one have to respect the views of a maniac? Does one owe respect to the view that it is OK to exploit young children for sex? Most people would say 'of course not, don't be offensive'. Yet this is what they apparently believe when they talk about 'respecting belief'.'Ahh, but..' (they will no doubt say) ',,,some beliefs are beyond the pale and cannot be seriously considered'.So who decides? Do we respect the beliefs of Christians, but not the beliefs of alien abductees? Why?In fact, when you think about it, the whole notion is daft, and only arises because of a mis-statement of the imperative.We should not 'respect belief' - nor should we pretend to. We should, absolutely, respect the RIGHT to believe.I do not 'respect' most of Christian dogma - I find it unbelievable and, in some cases, downright offensive. If, however, anyone was threatened or victimised because of such belief then I will stand with them. Free speech is much harder than most people think. It means defending the right of people to say things you personally disagree with, find offensive or stupid, or even think are dangerous. It doesn't mean that you have to pretend to like them, or even that you have to refrain from criticising or condemning them.This is the 'crime' of Dawkins et al - they have insisited on the right to apply the same standards of criticism and debate to religion that we routinely do to other choices and institutitions - and by golly the leaders of the churches do not like it one little bit."

Life is the most complex and, largely as a result, the most beautiful and precious thing we have found. Self-aware life is the crown-jewels - the ultimate way for the universe to know itself. I have no problem with the notion that homosapiens will be replaced, either by continuing evolution, or by some hybrid techno developments that we can't even guess at. Wishing the only 'aware' species in the known universe gone, however, seems criminally solipsistic.

Many theists are threatened by atheism. The US is an exception to the general rule, in that it is FAR more religious than other developed countries. In Europe theism has been in steady and fairly constant decline for at least 3 generations. Although a majority (70%) of people in the UK might put 'Christian' on census forms, the truth is that most of them aren't really practicing Christians and they certainly don't believe core items of christian dogma,Even in the US, the fastest growing faith position is atheism. Church leaders think they must fight-back against this trend, so here in the UK we get Church leaders whining about 'militant atheism' and 'strident secularism' which is both ridiculous and ironic. (The irony comes from the fact that many atheists, including me, can tell you stories of suffering real abuse and discrimination at the hands of theists, and the notion that theists are being treated badly is a rather sick joke to us).In some parts of the US being an atheist is likely to get you driven-out of the community, or worse.

Today is 15/4/2012. As many people know, IPU - the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless her holy hooves) is deeply attached to the number 42 which is, after all, the answer to the great question of life, the universe and everything.Well, 2012+4*15 = 30240 When we divide this by 42 we get 720 and £7.20 is exactly the price of a 10" Ham and Pineapple pizza from Pizza-hut. Theologians will know that IPU has declared the Ham and Pineapple pizza to be officially holy, as well as yummy,So, to those who doubt that IPU is God, let them explain this away.

That is deeply arrogant and deeply offensive to many people of profound faith who have, nontheless, been 'approached' by evil.

You are welcome.There is much debate amongst atheists about whether we should even bother using the word, since it defines a group of people by a negative - by what they do not believe. This is an odd way to proceed - we don't, for example, normally talk about people as 'non-footballers' or 'non-marxists'.Also, for some reasons best known to themselves, many theists are uncomfortable with the definition of atheist (one who doesn't believe in God(s)) and insist that it is changed to 'one who asserts that God does not exist'. The distinction may not be obvious at first but is hopefully made so by an example.I do not believe that there is water on Io. That is NOT to say that 'I assert that there is no water on Io' - I just simply have no current reason to believe there is. My mind could easily change, should evidence emerge.I suspect that theists deliberately try to fudge this so that they can then claim that atheism is 'just another belief' - since the atheist cannot PROVE that God doex not exist. Well, if an atheist DOES assert that God does not exist (a position most people call 'strong atheism') then I would agree that this is a belief - a faith position. The fact is, though, that most of us don't. I assert that it is, given the evidence available, highly unlikely....but I cannot say that it is impossible.

If not religion then what?Hinduism has a creation myth (well, several actually), a divine creator (Ishvara being one form) and a set of moral precepts (dharma/karma).Sounds like a religion to me......Thinking about it a bit more....you say that Hinduism is different because it has not developed 'according to an idea'. Presumably you think that other religions like Christianity and Judaism HAVE developed according to a central idea? I think that is a difficult thesis to hold together. Take Christianity (please take it! :-) ). What is the central idea? That Jesus was a manifestation of God? Nope, not really. At least one early Christian sect (the gnostics) believed he was mortal. The modern manifestation of Christianity would be totally unrecognisable to a 1st century Christian and the changes have not been part of some masterplan, following a central idea, they have, instead, been a series of pragmatic accomodations, forced moves and mistakes.I suppose you could try to make the case that Hinduism is unique in the way that it has 'absorbed' many intellectual/philosophical traditions, but again I think it would be difficult to maintain that it was unique in this. Christianity certainly absorbed other traditions - religious and philosophical. In fact most of the core of Christianity is found in earlier belief systems from North Africa, including ideas like the trinity, vigin birth, god sacrificing himself, rising from the dead....basically the whole shebang.

A slightly more formal way of stating the above would be:axiom : the material universe exists in an objecive sense (I shall label this 'reality').axiom : I exist within reality and my perception of the universe has some correspondence to realityI add to those 2 axioms the axiom/deduction that other people also exist in an objective sense (ie they are not just conjurations of my perceptions).Give those 3 starting conditions it seems to me that there are three ways to set about investigating the universe:a) Introspection/personal revelationb ) Received wisdomc) Empirical evidenceReligion is a formalised system, including elements of the first two types. Science is a formalised system of the third type.Given my starting axioms, knowledge gained by the third type must always be preferred over knowledge gained by the second and first type, for the following reasons:a) Knowledge of the first type is subject to the accuracy of my perceptions, and cannot be externally verified.b ) Knowledge of the second type is dependant on the accuracy of the source. To the extent that such knowledge can be empirically verified it really belongs in type 3.All religion involves appeal to types 1 and 2. Given that we know human perception is fallible, and we further know that humans are pretty terrible witnesses, it seems to me to be very dangerous to rely on type 1 and type 2 for any 'model' of reality that I want to construct.

Well, I'm an atheist, so I guess I can answer for at least one.Why do I not believe in Deities? That question would require far more space and time than is available here. I'll try to summarise:a) Human beings are extremely fallible and very susceptible to peer-pressure. This means that anecdotal evidence should always be treated with suspicion.b ) In order to investigate the universe we have developed two main systems - religion and science.Religion presupposes the existence of a 'creator' (or at least most religions do). Science also makes one supposition - that there is a real universe to examine.c) The proposition of a creator-God is not one that can be disproved by science, but most religions go much further than the simple deist position and make testable statements about such a God and the needs/wishes of such a God. Where such statements have been made they have either been shown to be wrong, or at best are phrased in such a way that they cannot be tested,.d) The reasons for the development of religion are now beginning to be understood and we see that religious belief can be explained in purely evolutionary terms.e) Most religion involves contradiction of known and tested laws of physics - miracles as we generally call them. As David Hume once pointed out - the probability of a genuine miracle is always lower than the alternative explanation - no matter how improbable that is.f) Whenever science and religion clash (whether it be the age of the earth, the position of the earth in the universe, the age of the human species, the development of the human species....etc) then religion has been shown wrong every single time.g) Science can now offer workable models for everything we perceive around us, without recourse to supernatural methods or events. There is simply no need for a supernatural God to explain the universe.h) Religion requires faith - which I define as belief despite (or even in spite of) evidence to the contrary. I believe that such 'faith' is always a bad thing and that we should decide based on evidence.i) Since there is no persuasive evidence for the existence of any God, I find no grounds for believing that any such God actually exists.

Something tasteful for an upset stomache?Dosa Potatoes and creamed spinacheSome Pulse dishes - channa dal or similarSome potato dishes - Aloo Matar and the like

Raise the monitor 2-3 feet and do the same for the keyboardYou should now be standing with the monitor at head height. Now jump up and down to synchronise with the monitor...needs a bit of practice...

That was written by an unknown source around 90-100CE. It is addressing 1st century Galatians and Caperddocians, warning them that the end of the world is coming (within their lifetime). The early proto-Christian sects were mostly millenialists/catastrophists - they believed the world was ending.As for taking it seriously - he is already 2000 years wide of the mark and I see no reason why it should be assumed that something 'prophecied' to happen 2000 years ago is actually going to happen any time soon.Still, if you really believe that stuff then I hope you are avoiding driving and operating any dangerous machinery. You could get raptured and cause a nasty accident to an innocent atheist.....

:-)est non valde vetus, latin meus juvenis. EGO eram doctus lingua ad Monachus Christos Nil illegitimo in desperandum carborundum

Animals do NOT have rights and the actual idea is silly. 1. Rights are balanced with responsibilities. What responsibilities do you plan to impose on animals? 2. Rights are just words unless they are generally acknowledged and agreed. 3. If animals DO have rights then who decides which animals get which rights? Do cockroaches have the 'right to life'? What about bacteria? Or are you just going to give cute animals rights? 4. If animals have rights than conflict with human rights then who wins? Do you let the rights of an animal trump those of a human? If so, under what circumstances? Who decides? You ? Animals have no rights. WE have a responsibility to animals, but exactly what that is will depend on your own views. You may think that YOU have a responsibility to protect various animals, but you cannot insist that I also share that responsibility - that is something I will decide for myself. Err..who told you that? In any clinical trial there is much to do before we get to an efficacy trial (to see if it works). First we have to see if it is relatively safe and what the potential side-effects are. Animals are still the only way of carrying out some of that type of test, before you go to human trials.Animals can also be used to study the mechanisms within and between cells that are pre-malignant. In fact there are plenty of ways in which animal testing is crucial to cancer research. Have you heard of Tamoxifen? You have if you have had cancer - it is probably the most important anti-cancer treatment in the last century - it also required and got significant amounts of animal trials and testing, without which a HUGE number of people would die much earlier than they now do.

With the rate they grow-up nowadays, I reckon kids are probably ready for the internet by the time they reach 35ish...

What research? Where are these papers published? What common conclusion?

So you think rape is worse than child-murder? Worse than any other crime? I think you have a strange value-system.Rape is a crime of violence and it is no more excusable than any other crime of violence. The particular harm is due to the fact that the victim suffers not only the physical assault, but also a profound 'helplessness' - their power to decide is taken away from them - and this is something that most of us find intolerable. Nobody in their right mind would seek to excuse or minimise rape and the damage it does. On the other hand, to equate it with murder is both unhelpful and actually quite offensive.As for putting rapists to death...as someone who is opposed to capital punishment this poses no real issue for me - obviously I would say no. I think you should be honest about your motivations however. The idea that the rates would decrease massively if you kill rapists is contradicted by just about every major study on capital punishment. If you want revenge then fine, but don't pretend it is some altruistic concern for others.

For me it is a no-brainer. We have 4 dogs and getting dog-hair out of carpets is one of those things that can eat a big chunk of your life if you let it. Wood flooring solved the problem. There is one downside - acoustics. If you have a nice Hi-Fi rig and you have balanced the sound for your room with a carpet (yes, I'm talking about real audiophiles here) then you are going to be dismayed when you put wood down because your sound quality will be pants. In extreme cases (ie in large rooms with lots of hard surfaces and little in the way of damping) the result can be horrendous - short-medium reverb making any sound almost unintelligable.

Errr..I think you are confused. Evolution is not the alternative to God existing. Most Christians, for example, accept the theory of evolution.Why should a scientific fact give hope, peace of mind or a cause worth fighting for? and why do you think that those things have anything to do with truth? If something does not give you peace of mind do you think that it must be false? Strange reasoning.....

In that case you need to do a LOT more study.The idea that the historicity of the bible is exact is laughable. Here's an example off the top of my head that show this claim to be nonsense - I can produce a long list of contradictions and errors with a bit of time to research it). The birth of Jesus. So, what do the Gospels say about this most basic question? Matthew and Luke say he was born in Bethlehem.(in order to fullfil some 'prophecies' from the OT). In order to get him there, Luke invents a census.