No, it's obviuosly an illogical conclusion.

If Ray Charles is represented by the letter 'R', and "Love" the letter 'L,' plus a 'B' for blindness, and "God" represented by the letter 'G'...

..then the supposed logic goes like this:

Given:

1. If R, then B

2. If L, then B

3. If G, then L

Therefore,

If R, then G

.....which is not justifed by logic.

See, while it is true that, if you take givens 2 and 3 together, that it's true that "If G, then B" (God is blind), but you cannot take that statement, and given 1, to produce "If R, then G" (Ray charles is god)

What you have, in the end, is:

If G, then B (God is blind)

If R, then B (Ray Charles is blind)

However, to say that "If R, then G" or "If G, then R" would require you to know that the concept of blind things is a set containing a single member.

That is, there is only one thing which is blind, meaning that, since both Ray Charles and God are blind, they have to be the same thing. And since we do not know that the set of blind things has only one member, it is illogical to say either "If R, then G" or "if G, then R"

This is assuming that R and G are both single objects, not sets of objects themselves.

Anyway, as to the actual question, I would say that the statement is true, because there is no evidence for any god. Which is to say that, the concept is so vague and insubstantial that it doesn't lead to any definition of that evidence which would confirm the proposition, or that which would disprove it.

That is to say, if we interpret the claim here "The biggest atheist of all time is god" as sort of poetic :P

For, by it's insubstantial nature, the claim of a god is unprovable. Meaning there is no reason to believe that such a thing exists.

No reason except for personal reasons, anyway. No rational reason to believe in some sort of god-thing, certainly.

EDIT: Whoops, double post

d

I say this question is invalid. The people who care about animals being at the mercy of a Zoophiliac probably also care about animals being slaughtered for food.

And the rest of us might both not care about animals being slaughtered, and wouldn't fret about an animal's consent, if it were to be put at the mercy of a Zoophiliac. Though quite a few might find the practice disgusting.

Well the word has no real definition. The concept (as commonly encountered among Christians) has no real substance, but is rather a collection of odd personality traits, like the need to be worshipped, and anger or compassion, when this is or is not received, and then equally ill-defined "abilities," like that to (somehow) create matter where there was once nothing, among other things.

The word isn't descriptive, it's merely a reference to a sort of emotional connection some people have with an abstract concept. So.....among those who share your beliefs, you'll probably be understood. Among those who can differentiate between fantasy and reality, or who just don't have an overriding motivation to ignore the distinction, you will be misunderstood.

However, since I'm one of the latter, I would advocate for the "....misunderstood" position.

I would change the laws on the age of consent, so that a child, under both laws, was defined as someone below the age of puberty.

If I could accomplish it, since the following would probably have to be defined in a fairly complex legal document, and since this is a hypothetical, we'll assume it'll be no difficulty, I would write the law to literally define a child as someone below the age of puberty. Some kind of standard medical examination would have to be relied on here.

In addition, the law would include a restriction of some kind on sexual relationships between an adult, as otherwise defined in law (18 in most countries), and a minor after puberty, so that an age difference of, say, 5 years or more was illegal. Though that number is flexible.

Also, assuming the complexity of writing this law was no object, I would define the child pornography laws to allow distribution of what would be defined as softcore pornography, including nude images, of minors after puberty. Appearances in hardcore pornography would be restricted to adults only.

The specific definitions of hardcore/softcore are not defined in this argument I'm making, but I think they would be fairly common sense things.

This is actually similar to the system Germany currently has.

Well, psychologically, there isn't a middle ground. If someone suggests something to you, you ordinarily deny it or accept it.

However, the actual claim of Atheism is merely that there is no evidence for any sort of god-thing, and not the direct statement "there is no god."

For it is impossible to prove a negative, like "there is no god." Or, like, "there are no unicorns," or "there are no wormholes."

We might, at some point, find something which indicating, neccesarily, that there was some kind of being, some kind of intelligence, out there, that we might call a god. Or we might find a unicorn, or astrophysics might discover a wormhole (If I've kept up to date with my astrophysics), and then these things would have been proved. But you can't prove the negative of them, and until they are proved, the claims are merely indeterminate, neither true nor false.

Actually, given Quantum Mechanics, this seems to be a property of the universe. Of reality itself, that is.

Things which are unobserved have indeterminate states.

I don't know about it being good or bad. It's just a part of what we are.

But there are ways to utilise the inherent greediness of a person in order to further civilisation. The free market economic system is basically designed to do this.

Well, for women it might be more that way, but it's something of a biological fact that men tend to be easily aroused by sight alone.

Of course there are other levels of desire and attraction. The desire for friendship, and the type of people you select, shouldn't really be labelled a sexual orientation, though you might care deeply for one friend, but in a platonic manner, more like as a brother, or possibly as a father.

But deep platonic friendships can progress into some kind of romance, you might say, depending on your sexual orientation.

Well, all vegetarian can be as healthy as an omnivore diet, given that all things are possible.

The question is how easy it is, and how much specialist knowledge you require, in order to fulfil all your nutritional needs when excluding meat or animal products.

And the answer is that it's far more difficult as a vegetarian than an omnivore, because most meats have a complete selection of all necessary nutrients. Even the B12 vitamin, which is not found in any plant, but rather is a by product of bacterial metabolism. Whereas particular roots and vegetables and such often contain only a subset of the total human nutritional requirements.

And, on a more personal note, CupioMinimus, I too have noticed that I somehow "need" to eat meat. I begin to feel run down and tired if I go for too long without having a steak, or even a cheeseburger.

On a slightly unrelated note, perhaps the reason people associate meat with unhealthiness is because most meats available in the grocery store, and especially from a fast food restaurant are full of excessive amounts of fat and cholesterol, much more than wild meats, which is caused by common "factory farming" practices.

I would enjoy it very much if I could just go out and bag an animal when I needed it. Unfortunately I live in the middle of a large city, so. Oh well.

I believe he phrased that wrong.

At least, here's a corrected version:

The top 1% pay a large portion of income tax, compared to the bottom 99. As do the top 10, and even the top 50, compared to those below.

However, there is a very large selection of corporations which pay, at least some years, exactly 0$ in taxes, due to loopholes in the tax code for corporations and just generally low taxes for the wealthy. Especially since the passage of the Bush tax cuts, which, while providing lower taxes for all, overwhelmingly benefited upper incomes.

Corporations whose annual profits exceed 100$ billion.

And then there are smaller corporations, who, by virtue of loopholes in the tax code, simply pay far less than an ordinary citizen would pay at their income level.