Are these stories located in the pancreas? Maybe my gallbladder loves my children and my Creator God. So to get this straight---The New Testaments the same as Homer coming up with Poetry --because Luke, Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, Mark and hundreds of others decided to spread the Diabolical message to Love our Enemies only to be murdered by these very people as they prayed for their forgiveness?

To equate the Gospel with anything else is just flat out ignorant.

Maybe we didnt just dig up the New Testament 30 years ago, or however young Mr know it all is--- and Please--dont defend him, you need to be so utterly delusional to make the Proclamation to Humanity, "There is no God". How can he possibility know that? A story he told himself? These people are so arrogant, with their heads so deep in the sand, they actually act like churches weren't formed in practically every city, that Kings weren't converted, countries formed and billions of lives changed. Stories?

A story is what this guy is peddling. A philosophy backed by Nothing. Its just getting so disgusting watching this parade of child philosophers making a living making people dumber. They couldn't hold a candle to the men they accuse of being liars.

The New Testament is Testimony given by men and woman whose lives were changed by the Truth.
With nothing to gain and everything to lose, ridiculed by friends family, strangers, beaten, flogged, spit on with rocks whipped at their heads, thrown in prison, and tortured to death, they sacrificed their lives--many leaving behind their families so they could spread a "Story" they made up? Yeah, I guess unbelievers need to put their faith in that story so they don't have to change. It's thoroughly embarrassing to honestly fail to see the difference, but the subject matter--our eternal judgement explains the blindness. But how about seeing the world without your fear deciding what the truth is?

Right. I was taught entirely wrongly on tides, I think by my father or it may have been my physics teacher, Dave Marlborough. Both revealed so much endless pleasure, that I still feel like thanking them for this another in the continuum of learning experiences.

I was told something. It made good scientific sense and I never tested it for myself. The centrifugal force (the apparent outward force in a rotating system countered by an actual restraining, centripetal, force) of the rotating Earth Moon system, discussed above I now calculate as miniscule compared with the simple tidal (differential) forces due to gravity. I wish I had thought to do that before.

Ignoring Earth's gravity we can imagine the Moon's gravity acting at all points on the mobile surface water of the oceans. We can also average the effect on all parts of the Earth, which is rigid, as a single force acting at the centre directed back towards the centre of the Moon. If we look at the effect of the Moon's gravity on the ocean and Earth, on the Earth Moon axis at its closest and furthest points, we might expect due to the inverse square law describing the increasingly rapid fall off of gravitational strength with distance, that the force acting on the nearest point of the Earth to be largest, at the furthest point least and at the Earth centre to be nearly in the middle of the two. The point nearest is pulled most and when applied to the water this, which can flow, is pulled more than the rigid earth underneath it, consistent with a thickening in the ocean film at this point. Meanwhile the furthest point water is pulled least, less than the rigid Earth which is pulled away from the water, again consistent with a thickening of the surface film of the ocean water at that point also.

Now here's the greatest surprise to me. These Earth-moon axial forces are not the main mover of ocean water. Looking at the forces on the oceans most off axis, once you again look at the angled direction of the forces on the water here, now at a slight angle to the main axis and pointing in a little to the centre of mass of the Moon, we can again compare it to the average rigid Earth force and see the difference between these two is now down into the centre of the Earth squeezing the oceans down, forcing a low tide. Because there is more extent of ocean stacked in line being squeezed down in this way and assisting its neighbour in the evacuation of the oceans at low tide, this serial co-operation is the more effective mover of water and tide creator.

The Moon causes low tides off the Earth Moon axis, rather more than high tides on it.

Who'da thunk.

Thanks again to Andrew and also to Geena for this revelation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4

Cut Galileo some slack, will ya?

aha ok i agree that it doesn't matter whether some particular trait or social activity has a genetic "basis"; what matters is whether it is just or right or wrong based on that "other level" of analysis that you referred to.

or are you just make a fool out of me?

That has not been my intention.

or you just deny them? (sean carroll, krauss, hawking)...

aren't you glad you have these brilliant scientists?
they really are brilliant and yet don't know how to define a 'nothing'
if you don't believe that a 'nothing' created the universe, then what are your beliefs? you deny also that the universe just 'pop'
you also deny that the universe starts from a 'big bang'
you also deny the eternal universe..
you also deny the eternal nature of retina, iris, optic nerves, lens, etc (because 'they happen to be there'?

or are you just make a fool out of me?

when i say 'nothing', it is nothing.. then how come this nothing produce a universe (materialism)?, as stipulated by your greatest physicists and astronomers krauss and hawking

Not exactly. Just because homophobia originates in part in out-group thinking does not mean it is not bigoted or nefarious, to use your chosen terms. These words describe and judge the behavior, while the genetic tendency to out-group thinking provides an explanation. We are talking at two different levels of understanding, mine being in regards to explaining the behavior, yours being in regards to judging its effects. In other words, a culture specific behavior rooted in a genetic tendency could still also be bigoted.

If you read past the first sentence of my comment, you'll see I addressed that. To reiterate: "So if that's all there is to logic, then logical relationships are just linguistic habits encoded by long-term potentiation in our synapses."

So the location in space is between your ears. The mass of an average adult human brain is about 3 lb. Its volume is about 5 cups. Its chemical makeup is the same as the rest of biology in terms of overall proportions of different elements: mostly oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen. On a molecular level, glutamate is predominant among excitatory neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. Potentiated synapses keep vesicles full of the stuff ready to dump into the synaptic cleft, and so one could reasonably focus on that chemical as being of special importance whenever you use your CNS, such as to think logically. The temperature is a fairly constant 99 Fahrenheit.

is 'nothing' a 'materialism'?

Uh, what? Wikipedia, as always, has a useful consensus definition of the word:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

Did you mean to ask whether "nothing" is a material?

Also, were your questions intended to relate to what I said? I don't see the connection...

so "cultural" homophobia is more a function of in/out group social psychology than anything "nefarious"/"bigoted"? is that a correct interpretation of your view?