that is your opinion. others would argue that they do exist regardless of who recognizes them. Wasn't that the justification for the american revolution? the british government did not recognize the rights of the people, and rather than saying 'oh well, i guess we don't have rights after all' the people rejected that government and formed their own. they did so because they believed that people really do have these rights, not because a governing body decided to let them live in a certain way.

So really, you don't have a good standard either? It seems that if your standard for 3 were applied to 5 then WoW would be on the list, not Everquest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

There are good scientists and poor scientists, but they are still people practicing science. Their good or bad science is part of the general discourse but hopefully only the good science results in induction.

Do you have some references? A quick google search didn't turn up anything on it

You may be right, but having just experienced a snow storm that left many roads impassible, another reason comes to mind. It could also be that the government realizes that this is a good medium to convey information to the masses. That is to say, in the event that something monumental or catastrophic happens, they will be able to communicate with the vast majority of the populace.

Actually, predator wasn't injured until after he killed Ventura. That one bald dude then picked up his gun and shot randomly into the forest and injured the predator.

What is interesting about cosmology is that it uniquely deals with the issue of origin as compared to other areas of science. So while some theists think that the big bang is an attack on the notion that God exists, there are other thinkers that believe that the big bang model helps the theist case. For example, the standard big bang model points to a time in the finite past where not only matter and energy, but also space and time came into existence out of nothing. Here's an interesting article regarding this from a theist perspective.

Wireless is also inherently insecure. It makes key logging a breeze.

Your average secular Joe is doing the same thing as the ignorant theist, only your language is clearly favoring the secular Joe ... and why? Because he's secular Joe! That is exactly the problem. It has nothing to do with theism or atheism and everything to do with MY group vs. YOUR group.

This is just not true. No one is that objective. And when the conclusion to the question might require a radical change in behavior, it's even more certain that no one will be that objective.

Actually Francis Bacon didn't develop the scientific method until the 1500s

This idea gets thrown around by a lot of people, and it just doesn't seem to make any sense. At a superficial level it kind of helps to push the question away from the forefront of the mind, maybe convince yourself that it's dealt with, but consider this:

Suppose a man were to be executed by a firing squad, all of whom were armed with live ammunition, standing relatively close, etc. Suppose that upon firing their weapons, not a single person shot the man -- all had missed. Do you think it would be reasonable for the man to say some varant of, "Well of course they all missed, I wouldn't be here to observe it were it not for their missing!"

That being said, this model is clearly an attempt to avoid that problem by positing a large number of possible universes, such that all of them are equally likely, whereas if there were only one universe then the one that exists for us to live in would seem to be quite unlikely. I expect this idea will get a lot of backing in the non-theist community.

As others have said though, the multiverse concept doesn't remove the need for an explaination for 'why is there something rather than nothing' unless the universe is cyclic, or rather, there is no start to space and time.