Insofar as any group who redefines reality through faith and doctrine can be said to be reasonable, Islam is just as 'reasonable' as all the others. Regional and cultural proclivities inform religious practices, not vice versa. They're mishandling their reality distortion field in a most egregious manner. It would be…

I prefer 'Shawkawa slipspace drive'.

Due to the craft never actually achieving relativistic speeds, its temporal frame of reference will remain in sync with those of us on earth. 4 weeks would be 4 weeks. It's a neat trick.

Being that the earth is only several thousand years old, the light would not have had time to reach us. God had to position the supernovas radiant energy nearer our solar system to meet His 'Original Sin Amendment Extravaganza'. He's a crafty one, I'll give Him that.

The usage of 'mankind' as it pertained to the moon-landing seemed to be more of a stylistic choice than anything else. "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind." The spirit of the event seemed to encompass all of humanity, and the wording seemed appropriate if somewhat antiquated.

The formal decorum is awesome. - "Well, we seem to have arrived at an impasse." "What do you say? Shall we pass in this onto some other issue?" "Lets."

Which part? Supplanting nature with science, or presuming to know that there is a god, let alone its personal predilections. I'm using nature as a proxy for god, not God - The a priori assertion of supernatural claims is the essence of hubris.

Yes, absolutely. I recently saw a quote that I liked: "Believe those who are seeking truth, doubt those who find it."

When I watched it as a young boy, I was completely unfettered by notions of gender roles as it pertained to the story. It was neither feminist nor pro-male. I saw it as being the heart felt escapist fever dream of a young person feeling powerless in a mundane and confusing world. A child's transition to emotional…

I don't want to overly invoke hubris. I believe that we are the result of natural processes which have been traditionally parsed in religious terms. God as proxy for nature. Yes, we can do much better than god.

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took the gummy bear and gave thanks. He broke the gummy, gave it to his disciples and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my gelatin which will be given up for you.

The conservative party is anti-choice, anti-science, anti-gay, and anti-socialized medicine. They refute climate change and see a secular government as being generally evil. The party is a cloister for racism, bigotry, and xenophobic group think. Pro gun, pro war, pro-anything-that-goes-boom...... Whatever you might…

It wasn't at all vague. Trolling, not so much. This was a comment on the absurdity of the flippant equivocation being bandied about like so much fluff.

You really cracked me up. :)

You did make some pretty good points, assuming we agreed on the same metaphysical realities. The problem with theological arguments is that there is no consensus amongst various faiths regarding the nature of God or his will. Some believe in predestination. Some blend ideas of freewill and predestination…

Also pain meds. Sorry:(

I know, right? I try not to read too much into it, but it's very uncanny.

You're the one who injected hostility into a fairly benign post. You've also framed his comment to align with your disposition.