No you did not, you completely ignored everything that could possible make this a rational thought.

When you can not debate rationally, revert to insult and ad hominem to smoke screen. What a surprisingly mature position you maintain. (sarcasm just in case you missed it.)

Red Herring, you simply refuse to admit you are wrong. You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces. I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position. Not one time in this thread so far have have you done anything except for say "nuh uh" and "look over there!".

No use continuing to debate someone that has zero ability to defend their position rationally. Later.

Right away you are ignoring the definition of deity completely. Notice also that you neglected the definition of a soul, and did not explain how a soul can be judged without a deity.

If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain. Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied. I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work. None of the people who publicly debate the atheist position address this point, because belief in a "soul" is irrational without a deity. Perhaps you can do what Marx, Godwin, and Miller can't do.

As I stated previously, putting different clothing on a deity does not make it anything but a deity. Arguing that Hinduism does not believe in a Abrahamic God does not make their belief that a deity controls the Universe any different. The Hindu religion just gives different clothing to the deity and calls it a different name (different supernatural powers, but not really a different supernatural purpose).

My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose, you are attempting to cherry pick a fragment to suit your argument. That said, you have not benefited your argument at all. You are trying to compare an action that you can make with a physical object with a measurable result, to an imaginary action on an imaginary object and an imaginary result. I don't consider that puzzling, I consider that irrational.

While I think your point does have some merit, it's because many people are ignorant with Logic and Rhetoric. It would be better to get people to recognize an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, at least occasionally. Reassigning "think of the children" to reductio ad hitlerum would only work if the people in power maintained the same "think of the children" arguments. They already swap this out on occasion with "think of the elderly", "think of the handicapped", or any other item they believe makes a confusing enough logical fallacy that people will fall for it in mass.

The Wiki article and definition is wrong? The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too? Or perhaps you are attempting to nitpick a fragment of the atheist position so that you can suit a belief that is surely not atheist? Quite possibly attempting to cloth a deity in a disguise so that your version of a deity does not match a more common theological view (without realizing that your deity is still a deity).

Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again? This is not comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to unicorns.

Fair point, you could be playing devils advocate. However, it was your statements I responded to so a fair response.

Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.

Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being? Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?

Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.

I never stated that Wikipedia was the definitive source, I said there is an easy to see statement which would have demonstrated that you are wrong. The traditions you attempting to claim are "not religious" happen to be for the purpose of cleansing one's soul. I won't reiterate what gl4ss stated, since it's on point. What _you_ call Hinduism is not the same as what a person practicing Hinduism believes.

As previously stated souls, reincarnation, magic, etc.. all fall under supernatural. Being assigned to a deity or mystical energy makes no difference, because neither are scientifically provable and neither relate to a physical scientific world. If you happen to believe in souls and reincarnation and claim to be an atheist, I would suggest that you contemplate your claim of being atheist more thoroughly because you are doing it wrong.

Unfortunately, there are a number of self proclaimed atheists who are not really atheists, what they really believe is the satanic creed "do what thou wilt" and never stop to ask the important questions.

The banks, energy companies and weapons makers. But most of them are not Jewish, sorry.

No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.

You don't have to study the religion very far to know that much. And sure, maybe you live in the backwoods someplace and can't find an Hindu to talk to about Hinduism. You could have had the courtesy of reading past the first paragraph in the Wiki page too, where you would have seen in the first sentence "In Hinduism, dharma signifies behaviors that are considered to be in accord with rta, the order that makes life and universe possible. A soul, reincarnation, and "an order that makes life and universe possible" are all superstitious and incompatible with atheism.

Good grief man, stop believing everything you are told.

I'd normally tell people that it's worth spending a good deal of time contemplating and debating Aristotle's work on causality prior to jumping into something related to Aquinas. I have never read Feser, does he attempt to bridge the gap for a novice? Does not sound that way by your description.

And the answer is "How many logical fallacies can you fit into a paragraph." *ding ding ding*

Perhaps "I'd like Trolling Slashdot for 1000", and the answer is "Mention Religion in a summary, more than one preferably"

No, discussing alien life is not "new" and no, this is not some interesting twist on the discussion. Claiming that "we are going to find alien life by XXXX date" is akin to claiming "the world is going to end by XXXX date". I don't believe in your tarot cards, your phrenology, or what ever else you claim gives you the power to see the future. We all know that the potential is there, but.. well you can read the definition of the word on your own.

You hopefully stopped reading when the guy correlates finding planets with finding life, knowing it was a troll.

From further reading, the ruling is based largely on the Chairman's testimony. There is some corroborating testimony from other employees backing requests from executives to upload "popular" music to their service to seed. Logs and actual evidence are not provided, and searching a bit found nothing. I'm not digging through PACER for this, be my guest if you are inclined :)

Transcripts are not available so it's impossible to know if context, however the Chairman is quoted stating they "bet the company on the fact that [it] is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission” to use plaintiffs’ content. Id. Escape discussed the possibility that its strategy of illegally growing its user base before settling with plaintiffs might permit it to collect information about Grooveshark users’listening habits, which it could then sell to plaintiffs for more than Escape."

This would put liability on the company, but I would suspect that it would require backing evidence which we can't see. Considering that there are personal charges brought against 9 other employees, there is an obvious concern that a plea bargain could contaminate testimony of the Chairman. That said, backing testimony does exist.

The plaintiffs claim that logs and source code were destroyed in discovery, but this is a normal claim by RIA lawyers when facts don't yield what they want. Of course the RIA is mentioned all over the court findings, including the initial lawsuit started by UMG and RIA. The initial law suit was over material that was recorded prior to 1972 and was not subject to copyright protection.

I'm so glad that the Copyright laws are here to ensure that the Hendrix family receives money from Jimmy's works. Oh wait, they fuck over everyone they can and pocket everything.. nevermind.

I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. Obviously these are opinions which are perspective based, so I'd be happy to have more data on how you came to your conclusion.

IMHO (not really that humble most of the time) I don't believe it's so that they can tell people they are worthless as much as they can claim that certain people and projects are much better than reality dictates. We can claim all of these Government programs really work if we hype small things like this, and of course ignore the fact that people are accomplishing exactly what you could have seen in a school science fair back when I was a kid. Not only that, but you can become a celebrity by doing so.

No matter which of us is closer to the truth in our opinionated conclusion, the fact remains that this is propaganda and not "News for Nerds". The unknown is what the purpose of the propaganda is, which often stays hidden for a very long time.

Before someone ends up jailed, check your state laws regarding this. An emancipated 16 year old can be treated like an adult in the workforce, but that is not because of their age.