OUG,

Obviously by "impact" I meant the effect or experience of force upon one's body.

The examples I cited from the book were meant to aid a layman's understanding. The example was "if the moon was suddenly removed from its orbit of the earth - ie, not there anymore". If it's no longer there, then its mass ceases to have an effect.


Obviously you consider yourself, on this and other scientific issues, way ahead of "science".

Take it up with Brian Greene - or Einstein ("Forgive me, Newton."), when you catch up with him.

Tony, I am both an atheist AND against narrow minded dickery.

I cannot prove there is no god, but on the weight of evidence and my intellectual commitment to truth I believe there is no god, so I classify as an atheist. As an atheist, I live my life as if this is it - my one shot to live a good life, my one shot to make the world a better place, my one shot to make my family and friends happy, my one shot to try to live up to my potential, my one shot to leave something behind - a memory perhaps, but maybe something more substantial...

Personal belief in a god or gods is way down at the bottom of what I care about (some classify this as deism). I am happy to debate the topic on an intellectual/philosophical basis, but the answers are beyond debate.

Theism on the other hand is at the top of my list. The reason it is at the top of my list is that religion plays politics. Religion intrudes into my life by a) claiming superior knowledge of how life should be lived and b) attempting to force me to live according to these standards. As soon as religion moves from the personal to the political it becomes fair game for rebuttal and defence. The moment religion enters politics, it opens itself up to broad scrutiny and it must be prepared for this to take place. If not happy, the answer is simple.

There are a spectrum of issues in this political sphere, which vary in importance. My personal top 3 are:
1. Religions intruding into my child's education - school chaplaincy program.
2. Religions receiving financial benefits drawn from public taxation simply for being a religion.
3. Religion playing any formal part in federal or state politics. e.g. saying prayer before parliament.

I feel that my position is pretty mild and fair minded and I am happy to discuss it further.

Pericles, you are mistaken in believing that the Global Atheist Convention, the Atheist Foundation of Australia (who ran it) or its attendees claim any sort of "one true atheist" position. I have provided significant evidence in my previous posts for this, however here's some more.

Here's the "Aims" section from the AFA:
* To encourage and to provide a means of expression for informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues.
* To safeguard the rights of all non-religious people.
* To serve as a focal point for the fellowship of non-religious people.
* To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith so as to enable people to take responsibility for the full development of their potential as human beings.
* To promote atheism.

None of this in any way claims to be the "true" or "only" atheism. You are claiming a strawman position and have continued to claim it against all evidence to the contrary. If the newatheists.org which you linked to had put the convention on, your position would be strong, but to link to a completely separate organisation/website is, as I said, simply creating a strawman.

If you wish to debate the actual position or aims of the AFA or the convention, I would be happy to have that debate.

im sorry pureo
but the moon cant sim ply disappear
so any 'science'...that relies on an impossability
well just cant happen

anyone who says it can
need explain..not me

its not about 'clever'
but what is possable

and moons dont 'disappear'

i know like others
believing other trickey bits ...
laughingly caled science..that may hurt

but i thought we were at least able to discuss it logicly

i know
silly me

moons vanish all the time
heck half the world will melt with global scamming

watc out
the birdflue..smoking kills [when used as intended]..lol
but booze sugar/pills kill far more..than deaths ATTRIBUTABLE to smokers..

but its a free choice
believe moons disappear
that wont affect my surity thats just not going to happen

sure the cheese would be worth millions
but..[man cant even bproove it landed on the moon

the vision we saw was faked
dick cheeney admitted that..on an sbs docco

i believe him
i disbelieve moon dissapearing

so sue me

lol

we are an opinion site
its my opinion..decievers use [abuse],..
the intent/meaning/values..of the true science's

how about the man on the moon
he will be peeved..[where did his moon go?]

half backed theories..wont even melt the cheese

silly me will try to explain
imagine..your in a sphere..one kilometer in diamater

holding a pebble..the size of your thumb[in its center
the thum size pebble..is the same proportions..as an atom..
and its electrons[much smaller than the atom...[mere sparks]in size..orbit within that 1 kilometer sphere[surrounding the atom]

now cool the atom..the electrons..fall closer to the atom
heat will move the sphere of tyhe electrons/neutrons etc..further

now imagine..holding an atom..[say air molicules
squeze them in twice..the atmosphere presure,,

and the orbiting electrons etc..begin to interfere..with each other
forcing electrons..into a lower orbital plane[this is what presure..in containment is

kep pumping in more atoms/more lowerr orbits..evenbtually achieve a change of state[gas..into liquid[but release the presure..the orbits return to their 'gas state'

but why bother
science says its chaotic loose electroons ,making 'the' pressure
and thats what the grownps stil felieve[lies told to kids]

i recall why people frustrate me

i proove to them wood coal etc cant burn
only gas burns..[heat wood it releases gas
at no stage does wood/coal solids burn..

but near most gasses
even metalic gas..[all but inert gasses]can be made to burn
but too much info from a retard [me]..to take any of it serious

OUG,

"but the moon can't sim ply disappear"

Well, der....

Greene used the example of aliens making off with the moon, not as part of a scientific theory, but as an absurd point of departure to explain that gravity and light move at the same speed. He also employed Bart Simpson and his skateboard to try and catch up to the speed of light for the same utility, but I'm not thinking that it's something nine year-old boys do that often.

It was not about the bloody moon, it was about the speed of gravity and light.

But you knew that already.

lol yerself mate...