You're asking for proof, beyond reasonable doubt, for the existence of God; Let's take a look at the big bang theory. Where did the first material, matter or whatever it's called, come from? How does the big bang theory explain the "there is absolutely nothing" to "now we have something" stage?

The very nature of a supreme being is that it isn't created; it boggles the mind, doesn't it? But that's the point you and every other evolutionist fall over; at some point, human logic is going to be in adequate to fully explain / understand the supreme being. What makes you think that humans are capable now, or ever will be, to understand everything in this universe? Saying "God does not exist because I can't find proof of his existance" is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand: "I can't see you, you don't exist."

So now we're using nature as our moral compass? ... I guess that means I (if I were a father) could have sex with my 10 year old daughter, after all, the male cats in my back yard will try and mate with kittens, and they don't care that the kitten is one of their offspring. Oh, and I guess that means I can murder anybody walking onto my property; many animals in the wild are "protective" of their property, they kill just because they are being harassed (see some BBC documentaries about Lions for example) ... The simple answer to that is, two males having sex, sex without marriage etc., is wrong because God says it's wrong, not because you may or may not find proof out in the wild.

Some people absolutely require proof before believing anything... but even some "simple" things cannot be proved, with 100% accuracy. If you're married, do you love your wife? Can you "prove" it scientifically, without any shadow of doubt?

Creation itself is proof of a supreme being, if only we open our eyes and want to see it.

First, an admission: there has been much damage by so called "Christian's" who really should not be called Christian, but either consider themselves to be Christian or are simply labeled as such by the media or other people. And even among real Christian's, nobody is perfect and without sin. I'm not excusing their actions, but you cannot criticize something the Bible teaches (sex is for a married man and women) because so called Christian's like to preach something different / inaccurate. If I were to go around quoting you and getting it half wrong all the time, how is that your fault? So my point here is to separate the teaching from the people.

But, that is why in my previous post I put quotes around "hatred", because that is not accurate. When you hear the word hatred, does that not imply feelings of rage, revenge, bitterness, violence etc.? I could give names of people I know, that are gay in their desires, but are still in church, and are accepted just as much as any other sinner in church, because they are not... how do you say that... actively living with another man. There is no hatred of the man there, and cannot be; all of us in church understand that we all have our own weaknesses and sins, and none of us are better then the other.

You need to climb down from your high horse; A) If your beliefs conflict with the Bible, then either you are wrong or the Bible is wrong; there is no "begging the question" or "logical fallacy" here; B) you know nothing about what I may or may not know about my faith; C) I really love this statement: "... your evil hate based retard faith... you fucking scum should all go die". You're a bigger hypocrite then most of the people you cut up; D) Read Mark 16 again, you seem to be doing some selective reading / interpretation there.

And finally... is the statement "a man may not sleep with another man" hating gays? How about "a man who sleeps with another man commits a sin"? How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?" Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.

I'm sorry, but your posts here show that you don't fully understand what you are talking about. Jesus WAS God, how can he be deluded about his own existence?

I'm still trying to figure out whether you believe the Bible to be true, and are just bitter about things you (I, we as a human race, for that matter) don't fully comprehend, or whether you're saying the Bible can't be true (because there are things you don't understand)...

In the case of David and his punishment, you really don't know what God's plan was, and why He did what He did. Think of how easy it is to question the reasons / decisions of people, spouses, businesses, governments etc. It's very easy to find fault with / rage against human beings without understanding the situation, now multiply that times positive infinity, and you may appreciate how difficult it is to understand God.

And just to further set the record straight, the death of his son was not the only punishment. Read 2 Samuel 12:11, and the account of Absalom etc.

Bingo. The 100% belief in science as the end-all-and-be-all explanation of who / what / how we exist is basically just like saying: "I can't fully understand the concept of God (by using science or other means), therefore, God doesn't exist." Talk about sticking your head in the sand and making like an ostrich.

Did you maybe ever think that what is wrong with the Bible is not the Bible, but your interpretation of it?

Just picking out one of the many errors in your recent posts: David was a man after God's heart, but God punished David for killing Uriah, contrary to what you imply. You need to read the Bible and understand what it says before you can criticize it (which of course applies to more then just the Bible).

And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference as can be seen in how Jesus responds to the murderer that is crucified with him.

I'm not sure terrorists are terribly concerned with the fine details of an EULA... could be wrong though.

Yes, but my suggestion is that the summary is confused... first the statement that these are academic people, then the fact that they are either already using latex or he is suggesting that they use latex. Quite frankly, if they can handle latex, they can surely handle the concept of revision control and something like "hg commit", "hg push" etc.

Technical writers shouldn't have a problem using technical tools, no?

I feel the same way about c / c++ software... if it doesn't come in the standard package for my system (i.e. in the repository) you can forget about getting it working on your system. The sheer mess of libraries and versions needed for this and that, never mind the build systems etc., make it impossible to get anything to compile and run.

Pick your poison... I'm a java developer, and the first applications I grab (when there are more then one available for the "problem") is one built in Java.