3RU7AL

How can a non-entity possess the intention of getting religion into schools by stealth, pretend to be science, etc.? It sounds like they're referring to a human organization. Don't you think?

Yes, theoretically from a natural evolutionist standpoint, if objectively observed evidence pointed to some race of humans being higher evolved than others, we would have no choice but to accept it.

Human justice demands equality, not acceptance of social status based on race/ethnicity.

Well, way to discourage me from learning history. I guess after reviewing my first exam, I basically wasted an hour for nothing.

God made a world.

The world stuck its fist up at God.

God tolerated this for a while - and then when he could not anymore - he judged it.

So creation ex nihilo makes perfect sense but somehow you draw the line at a boat?

...which is obviously true because these other life forms exist today,

There are many good reasons to argue that the existence of magical Gods is unproven.  I don't think finding fault with Genesis is one of them.

Or a family of fisherman surviving a regional flood.

I have never believed in religion. Religion ought to be abolished from my point of view. Yet, the definition today of religion is unhelpful so this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I understand what you mean by adapting and maturing into an adult. I left my atheistic days behind when I realised it had nothing to offer of lasting substance. 

They both demonstrate love and mercy and holiness and justice.

Evidence - yes!  It is evidence of history, not of truth.  A million sci-fi comics are not evidence that the Avengers actually existed.  But they are evidence of what people wanted to read about.

Religious books are such books that we do swear on.

I value logic and philosophy and good arguments.  

Revelation is a valid form of evidence.

I believe in the Bible

the hnidu book doesnt claim anyt religion, it is a philopshipy

The Bible is not a fictional book. Parts of it might be.

So all the babies and the donkeys were evil? The donkeys man? Why kill all the donkeys? Oh and the babies. Them too.

And your point, "You cannot use the Bible to show that God is evil but reject the other cialims in it," would reflexively mean that to accept any claim in the bible, one must accept all claims in it as fact, not pick and choose which ones you like to draw a character in some way that is otherwise inconsistent with the book. 

but the analogy is withiut merit as the writer admits it is a story

I am perfectly happy to entertain hypothetical situations and discuss the characteristics of fictional characters. 

You cannot use the Bible to show that God is evil but reject the other cialims in it

In other words, in contrast to "for the bible tells me so", it's "for Richard Dawkins, The Atheist Experience, Aron Ra, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, PBS/Nova, etc., tells me so".

...although if it is harmful it would not reduce the harm if it were considered by otherwise rational adults to be real rather than fiction and taught to children as a moral standard that they are meant to accept uncritically. 

It seems to be quite ok  to use the bible by non-believers as evidence of how bad and evil God is when they want to make a point about the evils of religion. So at that point it is considered ok to be evidence. 

If reason itself is your authority then I certainly don't think that it is irrational to appeal to that authority.

A man only needs to know how his car works enough that it does not endanger him or others, and get's him from point A to point B.

If there is authority in a standard created by people, the authority is truly vested in the people that created it.

Morality itself is an appeal to an objective standard (i.e. authority).

All of these would still amount to no free will though, even the random event.

Can you modify your desire to modify your desires?

lol.  Certainly.  Just get a good friend or family member to give you a painful shock every time you appear to be trying.  The real challenge would be in defining what qualifies as "trying".  Or better yet, have a shocking device implanted.  Program it, with the help of a neurosurgeon, to identify any attempt to reprogram a desire.  It wouldn't take long to ensure you never try anything like that again (assuming the neurosurgeon knows how to define "what qualifies as trying" inside your neural network of course).

Is consciousness more than awareness through perception...

But our formative experiences are more than merely firmware and certainly not just our Operating System.

No decision is made in a vacuum.  This is where randomness comes into play.

I just keep hoping that our newfound abilities vis-a-vis our prefrontal cortex, allow us to reprogram our tendencies.

Good example.

My FIRST COMPLIMENT!!!   At least I think so.  I may have missed a "good point" here or there if it was followed by calling me IGNORANT or STUPID.  :)

Every component is integral and necessary.

Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".

Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.

So then how do you reconcile your description with its definition?

Wouldn't this suggest that logic is independent of the mind? And if this is the claim, how so?

Then how can one perceive it, let alone identify it in the form of definition?

Wouldn't that conclude that we know nothing. Because whatever we do understand will be a fraction of an infinite progression (or regression dependent on how you see it.) Any constant outside of infinity over infinity produces zero, right?

Yes but the understanding of these phenomena are reflected by the scope of our consciousnesses. Would the data be the same if the limits of our  consciousnesses were either broken or expanded? Wouldn't that beg for new limits?

Yes, but the difference between the eye and the brain presumably can be "observed" (?) by an independent party. How is this done with the mind and NOUMENON? Can one see one's own brain?

Biology is certainly hardware.

Instinct/inherent data, is an operating system.

All acquired  data uploaded/downloaded to memory is software.

I think that "firmware" is an inappropriate analogy.