Recent content by Mattara

Reality itself is "skewed" to insult fundamentalists because it does not agree with them, so I do not see your point. Did you find any factual errors in the video?

There is no such thing as http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/Fundamentalist.htm: "If fundamentalism is primarily about the promotion of "fundamental" beliefs, it's not possible for this to be applied to atheism because atheism has no beliefs, much less "fundamental" beliefs...

Does not change the average.

- I use to this that correlation implied causation, but then I took a course in statistics and now I don't. - Ah, so the course was useful for you? - Well, maybe. (old xkcd joke)

As pointed out earlier, it is not needed. Do you have to see the entire universe to know that no square circles exists? Not at all, since the concept of a square circle is intrinsically self-contradictory and can thus not exist anywhere in the entire universe. If this was the case with the god...

Previously, the highest category of classification of organisms was kingdom. There 'were' five kingdoms: animals, plants, protists, bacteria and fungi. However, this classification was primarily based on things like morphology and when the molecular geneticists looked at it they discovered that...

Notice that the he is using the term nothing within quotation marks. Quantum mechanics is a material theory of the very small and does not claim that anything magical or immaterial is going on. He is not using the term "unphysical" as the term is used in laymen language.

No he does not. Just reading the abstract shows that the claim you make is false. "Abstract: A mathematical model of the natural origin of our universe is presented. The model is based only on well-established physics. No claim is made that this model uniquely represents exactly how the...

Where have I claimed that I define one by the other? If X is equivalent to Y, X is Y (but not defined as Y). If you don't accept that matter and energy are equivalent, you must reject the conservation of energy. In pair production, the energy before is equal to the energy after, but after...

It is a scientific fact that there is an equivalence between matter and energy. http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/ The fact that it is your faith that they are not equivalent does not somehow make them not equivalent. This exact argument...

It is not a tangent. All matter has mass (Newtonian mass or relativistic). Please address the argument.

If you think energy is purely conceptional, try sticking your hand into a bucket of boiling water. If you think energy is purely conceptual, why has scientific models treating energy as real been so successful? No, it follows that some matter in certain configurations are conscious, which is...

The mass-energy equivalence universality is no threat to materialism; in fact, it is one of the great successes of materialism. Again, just because all minds are material does not imply that all matter forms minds. It is certainly relevant because it shows that anything that interacts with...

Matter is by definition material, so I see no problem with that claim.

Yes, it is. I obviously do not mean Newtonian matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence Do you reject the conservation of momentum? If my immaterial foot kicks a ball and the ball keeps rolling, the change in (linear) momentum in the ball is mballvball and the...