skycatcher68

This is not true! It is the responsibility of the jumpers and jump pilot to ensure the airspace is clear before jumping. A pilot transiting over an airport at 7,500 ft. has no requirement to monitor either the airport traffic frequency or the approach/center frequency.

A really confused theist. Zeus is a lot like a god. If you go into a restaurant because you're hungry, but can't decide what to order from the menu does that mean you're not hungry?

Why do theologians get to define the meanings of particular words when they have a particular bias? Have you tried looking in a dictionary? Agnostic and atheist are two different things; knowledge and belief, respectively. Do you believe in the existence of a god? Yes, you are a theist. No, you are an atheist. An agnostic believes that the knowledge or existence of a god cannot be proven one way or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not the agnostic believes in a god.

A theist has a belief that a god exists. If you are not a theist then you are an atheist. If you are unsure that a god exists, and therefore don't believe that a god exists, then you are an athiest. Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not you have a belief in a god. An agnostic could either be an athiest or a theist depending on whether or not they believe a god exists. An agnostic theist believes that a god exists, and also believes that the existence of the god cannot be knowable or proven, and takes the existence of the god purely on faith or wishful thinking. An agnostic atheist believes that the existence of a god cannot be knowable or proven, and chooses not to believe in something that cannot be known.

Agnostics (asmurftics) believe that there is no way to ever know whether or not smurfs actually exist. Atheists (asmurfiests) don't have a belief that smurfs are real because there is not enough evidence to prove their existence, but don't claim that there is no possibility that smurfs exist.

That makes no sense. Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of belief. An agnostic doesn't think that they can know anything about the nature or existence of a god. An agnostic does not believe that there can be evidence for the existence of a god. An atheist does not have a belief that a god exists, it is not a belief that a god does not exist. An atheist expects there to be sufficient evidence for a god before belief can be justified. Anti-theism is the belief that a god doesn't exist.

A theist is someone who believes that one or more gods actually exist. An atheist does not have a belief in a god, not necessarily that a god or gods don't exist, just that there is not enough evidence to warrant a belief that a particular god does exist. The burden of proof is on the theist, or a god, to prove that a god exists, not on an atheist to prove that a god doesn't exist. As to the question of morality, atheism is not a world view or a system of morality. It is simply a rejection of the claim that a god has been shown to exist. Therefore, your question of atheism and morality is highly biased and leading, in other words, preaching to the choir. Those who do not believe in a god, and therefore, don't believe the teachings of religion based on faith are free use other means of evaluating morality across the strata of human experience, culture, science, philosophy, and logic for the common good and well-being of society. As a corollary, those who do not believe in the divine nature of religious scripture, say the Christian Bible, are free to read it objectively for what it is, an incredibly immoral, contradictory, and absurd collection of archaic stories that illustrate why atheism is the superior position. If you'd like to see the ignorance and dishonesty of people trying to defend the morality of their religious beliefs, may I suggest checking out the YouTube channel - The Atheist Experience. The Atheist Experience is a call in show, usually hosted by Matt Dillahunty, where theists try to argue for the existence of a god, and generally prove themselves to be in denial of and ignorant of the immorality of their own beliefs. The show also does an incredible job of explaining where atheists get their morals from, which is the question you originally asked, but something tells me that you weren't really looking for an answer!

I thought this thread was going to be about The Shawshank Redemption.

Well considering what the SIM says itself: It would seem what Mr. Mullins is proposing is an overreach. The section in the BSRs under APPLICABILITY reemphasizes that the procedures are voluntary

I found the movie disappointing and ultimately completely forgettable. 1) There's a backdrop of historical events, but it's devoid of any dramatic story. The Right Stuff it is not! 2) This movie proves they couldn't have faked the moon landings. Given today's cinematic technology the (action) scenes come off as a drug-induced fog of vague memories of historical events with nothing new to offer. The opening X-15 scene is a complete disaster. If I wanted to be in a situation where I had no clue what was happening while being vaguely aware of my own consciousness, I'd take twilight dentistry over having to watch this opening scene again. 3) I have no clue what the buzz is over Claire Foy's performance. There's absolutely nothing in it that hasn't been seen in the average soap opera. Perhaps people are comparing it to Ryan Gosling's catatonic interpretation of Neil Armstrong, but that shouldn't be the bar her performance is judged by. 4) They couldn't come up with even one new camera angle of the moon landing. Instead of seeing the lander from the outside as it approaches and lands on the moon giving perhaps a new perspective, we are stuck with a recreation of the same camera angle that was actually shot when Eagle landed the first time - like we haven't already seen this before. 5) The flag-planting controversy is just ridiculous. The movie is filled with American flags. When did certain scenes become compulsory in a movie? Well, okay if James Cameron hadn't showed a ship sinking in Titanic there'd be something to complain about. The entire moon scene is just so superficial that it looks like the only reason the astronauts went there was to plant a flag, and they didn't even show that!

I don't know how I ended up on this thread, but the scene the OP asked about is from the movie, The Spirit of St. Louis with Jimmy Stewart. It's during Lindbergh's barnstorming days flashback and there are jumpers who....well, found a link. It's at 2:55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMm__jKgahU

No, 19 passengers is the max before you need a flight attendant. -Mark I'm sure that Cessna will certify this thing in the Part 23 Commuter Category which allows it to weigh more than 12,500 lbs. although at over 12,500 the pilot will need a type rating and it will likely be certified for both single-pilot and two-pilot operation, like King Air 350s are, provided the pilot holds a single-pilot type rating. A flight attendant is required with more than 19 passengers and is also the Part 23 Commuter Category maximum, however, a second pilot is required under Part 91.531(3) if the airplane has more than nine passenger seats excluding a pilot seat, i.e. an airplane can have nine passenger seats and two pilot seats but can only carry a maximum of nine passengers when operated single-pilot even if a passenger is sitting in the co-pilot seat. Ten or more passenger seats requires two pilots even if there are no passengers on board.

How do you disrespect a system that allows you to protest by using said system to protest? How do you not see the contradiction in what you're saying? You don't disrespect the National Anthem, the Flag, or this country by exercising freedom of speech, you celebrate this country and its Constitution by doing so! For example, don't disrespect Christmas by opening Christmas gifts on Christmas since Christmas is about giving gifts. The logic is ridiculous! What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King?

Here's one of them now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ8WKscGo8I

Anyone else notice that the opening title sequence (the parachute packing clip) was done by the same guy that does the 007 openings?