Raven

quote: Oh well, about time to pose another question... Concealed carry permits... good or evil? Well, I would say that theyÔÇÖre better then not being able to carry concealed at all, but I doubt they help reduce crime any more then other types of gun control (criminals, after all, neednÔÇÖt bother with a concealed carry permit). So the question becomes whatÔÇÖs the point, and the only answer I can come up with is to raise money for the government. Besides, it is unconstitutional (after all, the second amendment specifies the right to bear arms, not just own them, and most states consider walking around with a visible gun illegal).

LMAO that is just too rich.

quote:I hate tp be rude, but... Everyone shut up about the Revolution! Jeez people this topic has gotten so off topic. First of all darling, we didnÔÇÖt bring this thread so far off topic, you did, so donÔÇÖt complain about it. Second, calm down, take a few deep breaths, and then post something silly about the chicken revolution so we can continue teasing you about it

quote: Generally, though, where gender differences are involved there's a good chance it will biased in the female's favor regardless of differences in physical size. Very sexist not that youll hear me complain quote: Which brings up another good point, if you do have to shoot somebody don't say anything beyond "I thought he/she was going to kill me... I was so scared" to the police until you have an attorney present. Now thats damn good bit of advice, I can see that making a big difference.

quote: The guidelines covering the legal use of deadly force varies from to state. Generally, though, it requires an immediate threat with the capability to inflict severe bodily harm or death and the motivation to inflict that harm. In most cases when the threat is unarmed it usually requires showing that attacker was considerably more powerful, either through greater physical size or through superior numbers. Oh dear, let me see if I understand you correctly. If IÔÇÖm attacked by an unarmed man who is smaller then me (and being that IÔÇÖm a tad of 6ft tall, most men are smaller then me) then it would be illegal to shoot him? ThatÔÇÖs kind of scary when you think about it. quote: Genetic engineering and mind control? Who needs that when they already have TV? And that, darling, is why I donÔÇÖt have a TV (okay, the real reason I donÔÇÖt have a TV is because there is never anything good on, but that doesnÔÇÖt sound as good ). Oh, and once more, I agree entirely with Jaguar. Is it just me or is he always right?

quote: Dear Lord, when will the madness end? When we purge all supporters of the chicken revolution (read: as soon as MP comes out, so the sooner you get MP out sooner we will waste them )

quote: I just hope we can get to the state where they will be unnecessary. Maybe in a few hundred more years. Humanity is not that advanced yet. However, tempers and anger will ALWAYS be part of the human construct so my wish is an almost hopeless one. DonÔÇÖt worry darling, at the rate things are going in a few generations we will be advanced enough. Advanced enough to use genetic engineering and mind control to turn the masses into cattle that is.

ThatÔÇÖs too rich!

Harrumph! I like undead and night elves!

And that, darling, is called Darwinism.

I have to go with Litvyak on this one; nothing is preventing most people from owning a gun, so your scenario is valid. Anyway, I donÔÇÖt think there are many old grannies who could handle a Desert Eagle, and techies have better things to spend there money on then scopes and laser sights.

Again, stating that entities with the same properties are identical, when interpreted inclusively, is not the same as say entities with different properties cannot be identical. Thus, again, you logic is flawed. You have not refuted my argument, only restated yours.

Ok Litvyak, your evil, just plain evil, do you have any idea how much time IÔÇÖm going to end up posting here?

quote: Can everyone please stop insuting Chickens? Sure, as soon as we start eating them

IÔÇÖm not being sarcastic in the least; I found both the source of your handle and the two sites you linked to quite interesting.

Fascinating

IÔÇÖm not a big fan of fast food, so maybe IÔÇÖm missing something, but this is just pathetic.

Animal farm is only vaguely like 1984, and a lot more fun to read. 1984 really is a really dismal book, and coming from me thatÔÇÖs saying something. IÔÇÖm not saying that itÔÇÖs bad or anything, it isnÔÇÖt, but itÔÇÖs depressing in a big way. As for stem cell research, IÔÇÖm all for it. It makes no sense to me why it would ever be forbidden, but then a lot of that type of thing makes no sense to me. Oh, and I just love SCÔÇÖs new quote

Did you ever play chickens 2 darling? ItÔÇÖs a really fun game where all these chickens run around on the screen and you shoot them (I think there is a choice of weapons on such not as well). Lots of fun, pity it wont work on XP.

Actually darling, BCG will support multi slot assets, which is basically what you are talking about.

quote: Well, if we agree that science isn't going to prove/disprove it, what evidence would convince you? What would there need to be? It seems that there is nothing that would convince you (even theoretically). ThatÔÇÖs a very good question, and I donÔÇÖt really know if there is any evidence that would convince me. Perhaps if Jesus came down in a fiery chariot or whatever as you mentioned before I might be convinced, but other then that probable no. To put a little different take on it, what kind of evidence would you need to believe in invisible and immaterial bunnies? quote: But again, your making the assumption that "if they study it more closely, science will explain it". Maybe science isn't infallible and it can't explain everything. Sure, I agree that some "miracles" may be able to be explained by science, but I highly doubt that with the consistency of them and them being focused around religious icons that they are all just "flukes". What IÔÇÖm saying is that there is that there is no reason to believe science couldnÔÇÖt explain them, even now, if they were properly studied. Perhaps it is some type of spirit or something, or perhaps it truly is god. IÔÇÖm not saying that it is a fluke that it occurs around religious items, its perfectly possible that such items are religious because such phenomena happen around them, whether the cause is supernatural or scientific. All IÔÇÖm saying is that we donÔÇÖt really know what goes on in that type of miracle, and we will never know if we donÔÇÖt investigate thoroughly. Maybe we still will never know, but I doubt this. quote: Those entities would have to be outside of the scientific realm (and not be able to be explained by science as we know it), and not subject to the idea of cause and effect, which is what most of our science is based on. I see. Can you explain how they can photograph ghosts and auras? These are clearly supernatural phenomena that are, to some degree, measurable by science (though they donÔÇÖt, in truth, lead themselves to be measured easily). Just because something canÔÇÖt be explained by current science doesnÔÇÖt nececitate it being outside of science. Perhaps your right, perhaps supernatural phenomena are outside of science, but then perhaps not. After all, is not supernatural the term given to things currently unexplained by science? And havenÔÇÖt a number of phenomena been explained and then made no longer supernatural? IÔÇÖm not saying that all such phenomena can be explained, but the only real evidence available for this type of prediction says that yes, such phenomena are explainable. quote: Actually, I accept that it could just be some beings that are in another dimension/plane of existance that is impossible to explain by science and outside of the scientific realm(think Dungeons and Dragons: Baldurs Gate II or Planetscape: Torment, with the different planes), but I have faith in it being God as opposed to that. Your faith is good for you, but it will convince me of nothing. Interesting that you point out AD&D, are you familiar with the pencil and paper versions or only the computer games? quote: Ahhhhhh. Ok, think about graphing infinity to negative infinity on a number line. All points are covered. If that number line represents time (our comprehension of it), and if God is everpresent/always existed, He existed at every point on that number line, and He could affect the events at any point on that number line however He wants, such as creating the universe, etc. He never would have to become subject to cause and effect since He would be the ultimate cause that created everything and would never have to "come into existance" since He was always there. I can't even be sure my explanation is right, but I do know that there's probably no way I, or any other human, can truly comphrehend God/existance, just like infinity. Your explanation is invalid. Infinity has neither beginning nor end, and if we were to say that there is an infinite amount of time passing before earth came into existence, then it would never have came into existence. What you are suggesting is dividing infinity into two (the half before earth came into existence, and the half afterwards). This is blatantly impossible as infinity cannot be divided by two, or split in half, or any such. To use your number line example, rather then placing earths creation at 0, instead place it at positive infinity, and because positive infinity has no value there is no point on the number line at which earth is created. My math stands. quote: It's just that if you accept that there had to have been some entity that started the universe which is outside of science, then your admitting that science can't explain EVERYTHING, which means that the probability of there being a God has to be greater than you originally contended since your original contention came across to me as science can explain just about everything. I donÔÇÖt know enough about the beginning of the universe to know whether what you suggest is a possibility. When I say that I DONÔÇÖT KNOW, trust me to mean that I do not in fact know. What you say may be true, but then it may be false as well, and as there is no way to determine which is the case then you will convince me of nothing. I do not accept the necessity of some entity outside of science, because I donÔÇÖt know if that is truly necessary, and neither, I think, do you. quote: So what will? I'd think it's safe to assume that if miracles focus around religious icons/locations/etc, and they can't be explained by science (right now or ever, we don't know), it would be a strong clue that there is a God. I have addressed this point repeatedly, and will not do so again until a new argument is made. I tire of repeating myself and reading you do the same. quote: My point of that "what if" was only to point out that it'd be impossible to prove to you that there is a God. If some entity came down from space, teleported me into a spaceship, teleported me back at time to the beginning of the universe, created the Earth, took me down close to see the dinosaurs forming, and then teleported me back to present day and said to me "There is no God to worship...", I would probably stop believing since there would be another clear explanation of an all-powerful being that claimed to not be God. If somehow there were clues or proof of another plane of existance that explains everything about religion, i'd probably stop believing. There are plenty of ways to prove me wrong and get me to stop believing, but my "what if" scenario is just to point out that there's virtually no way to convince you that God DOES exist. Please read my post, I did in fact say either of us could argue for scenarios that would invariably convince the other. To repeat myself, if Jesus did come down in a fiery chariot I would probably believe, and similarly if I was repeatedly bombarded by phenomena regarded as miracles. quote: Well, you can get convicted of strong circumstancial evidence. (there are witnesses around every exit from a building, there's only one person inside, another walks in with a gun, the original person dies from a gunshot wound and there are powder burns on person 2's hands. no one saw the murder, and it could have been aliens screwing around with the two people, but person 2 would be convicted). I don't think it's impossible for me to be wrong, but clues do point to a higher being, whether it be God or some other plane of existance that we could never understand. Bah, none of the evidence for god is that clear, you purposefully misunderstand me. I would make an analogy but there is no point. quote: And that attitude would destroy society and happiness for everyone. As you have no doubt noticed most people will give the same answer to what is right and wrong, though there are obvious exceptions (birth control, abortion, euthanasia, et cetera). Thus we can see people share some core concepts of morality, while differing in others based on how they were raised and there experiences and such not. Thus, that attitude does not destroy society, period, kindly desist saying so. quote: So marry someone who "does it for you". Doesn't preclude having pleasure/fun from sex. And I didnÔÇÖt say it did, you really need to pay more attention. I simply said that it makes in more difficult, reducing the availability of partners and the times during which any partner is available. quote: Losing freedom and being locked up usually is not very pleasurable, as far as I know. Are you purposefully misunderstanding me? IÔÇÖm saying that it is a risk which must be judged based on the potential for greater gain. Sure, there is the possibility of jail and such not, but thatÔÇÖs why your careful and weigh the risks before acting. quote: But humans weren't flying at the time, and then science was saying it couldn't be explained. There ARE miracles now, and when science says they can't explain em, you assume that science will ALWAYS be able to explain EVERYTHING. If science CANT explain em, don't automatically assume that it eventually will. That's like immediately assuming if someone says "I can't fix the car", that they will eventually be able to do it. It's like using science as a shield against the existance of God, even though if you realize the flaws in science (creation of the universe, miracles, humanity in general, religion, etc), the possibility of there being a God or a higher power becomes greater and greater. Darling, it makes more sense to assume that science will be able to explain most everything given enough time then it does to assume all these various things are unexplainable by science (supernatural entities are unexplainable, god is unexplainable, creating is unexplainable, miracles are unexplainable, et cetera et cetera et cetera). Sure, there are things that may never be explained, but then they may be explained. I simply see no reason to doubt science, and it is most certainly not flawed, just incomplete (and by the way, how is humanity in general a flaw in science?). Now, for your analogy about the car, if the person who said he was going to fix it had a record thousands of years long for fixing things, both cars and other things before cars, and hundreds of years in which to get it done, then yes, I would believe he could fix it. Would you think otherwise? quote: But it's not THAT small. (refer to all other arguments) I'm not saying that it can be proven with 100% certainty that there is a God, i'm just trying to point out that the chances of there being a God are much higher than you make them out to be. What IÔÇÖm saying isnÔÇÖt the probability of god existing or not. There is no probability of his existence, either he does or he doesnÔÇÖt, but what I am talking about is the probability of his existence based on my data. You could calculate the probability of the universe existing in a certain patter, but the truth is that it exists in the pattern it does, no chance involved. Now, back to god, itÔÇÖs the same this, I can say that the probability of something like god existing is very low, this doesnÔÇÖt mean he doesnÔÇÖt exist, simply that he is so extraordinary that, based on current knowledge, his existence is nearly impossible. quote: Another insight into me, i'm almost exactly parallel to you on the above, except that i'm usually not deceitful and/or cruel. I sometimes am, but only when it is for justice in response to a violation of my view of right/wrong. That's also one area I diverge from mainstream Christianity on. I don't believe everyone as "equal", as Christianity maintains for the most part (although I also don't advocate Eugenics or killing "inferior" people, which the "everyone is equal stance" was probably based on to begin with) If I may quiz you a little, where your parents Christian? Did you have any strong roll models in your youth? Did you generally get away with doing things that are considered by society as a whole to be wrong? As for killing people who are inferior, I wouldnÔÇÖt go for that either. Sterilizing them and shipping them off to some menial factory, however, would be just a dandy idea quote: Very interesting. We have/had similar experiences but totally different views on the world. It does explain it though. Being superior (or believing in being superior), has made me have the view that people are pitiful, but I think I just feel sorry for them (and thus adhere to a morality), as opposed to purposeful gaining pleasure from them (although I often do, but it's not usually intentional or hurtful when I do). Morality is a hinderence, but I just never want to take anything too far. Well, pity is an emotion I have never understood and always found repugnant, both when I witnessed someone having pity on someone else (one of the first times I really noticed it, I couldnÔÇÖt understand why my friend would tolerate this other person who was a dumb (and I mean this literally), fat, pot head who smelled bad to boot, it was a little sickening to witness). As for morality being a hindrance, IÔÇÖm glad we agree, now the next step is decide that you have no need to be hindered quote: Anyway, interesting/cool story. Thank you, it would be interesting to hear why you think you got to where you are today? quote: You never know, maybe if you find out about Him you might have more in common than you think. (I don't know, the line just sounded good and sort of applied) Your right darling, you donÔÇÖt know. quote: There are plenty of ways to be moral while still making others unpleasant. The concept of "the truth hurts" often works well (especially in long drawn out plans of revenge/justice). Vengeance is fun, but you can only have vengeance on someone when they wronged you first. I much prefer to avoid that to begin with. quote: Nah, i'm saying premarital sex is wrong because the concept allows for promiscuity, just like racial discrimination allows for racism and hate crimes. Yes darling, you say premarital sex is wrong yet your basis for that is solely that it allows promiscuity. Do you have any argument against non-promiscuous premarital sex? As for your analogy, it isnÔÇÖt even close. quote: I maintain it's unnatural for humans since it serves no biological function. (ok, so the argument's weak, but it still applies) You have yet to address my argument cars are even more unnatural (not to mention worse for society as a whole, producing pollution and such not). As for there being no biological reason, that is true, but then there is no biological reason to play BCM (or any other game or any type), and yet people do. If you want to argue that sodomy should be forbidden because there is no biological reason, try to thing about the number of actions you perform each day without a biological reason (and how many of these are ÔÇ£unnaturalÔÇØ). quote: I don't think you can commit gay activities (the Church isn't against gays, just their activities...at least that's the Catholic view) YouÔÇÖre not catholic, so whatÔÇÖs your view? quote: They don't have THAT many nukes, at least not like Russia did. Besides, China would be glowing green before they would have time to fire all their nukes back at us. They'd never even see it coming. Getting hit with even one nuke is too many, and there is still nuclear fallout (not to mention political fallout) to deal with. A bit of biological warfare though, no real way to trace if back to the US if itÔÇÖs done carefully. quote: Well, unless you think you can take the pitifulness and weakness of society and improve it for the future so people you care about and future generations has to put up with how bad society is today. Darling, like I said, I donÔÇÖt really care that much for people or society. My idea of helping the human race would be something like that bio weapon I was talking about earlier, sterilize a third or so of the population and watch the population drop. quote: I prefer the long-term pleasure emotional/spiritual/mental pleasure that comes from doing something that will last forever and have a significant impact than the short-term personal pleasure that is tangible but fleeting. Yea, but since I have no desire to do anything that lives beyond me, I go for the short term and very tangible pleasures that I can take, many of them being emotional/mental pleasures. quote: Go animal rights! Go Humane Society! Long live the animals!!! (ok, I admit it, there's just some intrinsic belief in me, probably not even connected to God, that makes me think that beastiality is wrong) I canÔÇÖt say I truly understand why someone would think of that as repugnant, but then I wouldnÔÇÖt think of mass murder as repugnant either (pity however, thatÔÇÖs nasty, but I donÔÇÖt mind mass murder). quote: But if a STD jumps species, we could have a huge problem, especailly if the new form could go airborne. Besides, there isn't enough research to prove it either way (not many scientists are going to hump animals). First of all, if that was going to happen it would have a very long time ago (people have been doing it with every type of animal you would think it was even remotely possible with, and a number you wouldnÔÇÖt, for a great many years). Furthermore, a study on animal STDs would no more involve humping them then studying human STDs would involve having sex. IÔÇÖm not going to go into how it would be don, I donÔÇÖt know for sure (though I have some ideas) and it isnÔÇÖt relevant anyway. quote: To be truthful, I don't know the ENTIRE concept of Natural Law as proposed by (I think it was John Locke), but i'm pretty sure it talks about humans as having intrinsic inalienable rights that tend to fall along the same ones that the constitution guarntees, freedom, life, liberty, etc, and I believe that those should be protected. Yea, I remember that now. I would tell you that I find the idea as preposterous as morality, but then you probably already guessed that. Besides, there is no such thing as an inalienable right; all you have to do is kill someone to take it away. I donÔÇÖt think people talk about inalienable corpse rights quote: I have a very strong contempt for people attempting to harm, hurt, or decieve me in any way, and I always am sure that they pay for it. Now, I don't know if that's "wrong" or not, but it's the way I am. Nothing wrong with a little vengeance darling, except insofar as it isnÔÇÖt as much fun as a lot of vengeance (nor as effective) quote: When it cries, duct tape it's mouth shut? Really? IÔÇÖll take your word for it, though my first instinct would be to go for my soldering iron. quote: So the woman shouldn't have been stupid enough to have sex in the first place. If there's the possibility that it's a life, the possibility of allowing murder shouldn't be allowed just because of someone's incompetence. And how do you figure that it is stupid to have sex when the worst possible solution is pregnancy (barring STDs, but thatÔÇÖs a different topic entirely), which can easily be aborted? I see nothing stupid about this at all. Anyway, I donÔÇÖt think that it could be called murder any more then squishing a bug could be called murder. quote: Too bad she was a moron (sorry if anyone on here has had an abortion, but i'm not going to change my view that your an idiot for having sex if you weren't prepared for the possible consequences of your actions), and I think that if people are advocating overpopulation, that's fine, since the kids put up for adoption will be the first to die off anyone. At least they should be given a chance. First of all, I would say that any woman willing to get an abortion is prepared for the consequences, there is simply nothing moronic about that at all. And overpopulation causes all sorts of misery (itÔÇÖs fine in other countries where a work surplus would result in cheap labor, but there is no such thing as truly cheap labor in America anyway, and this is where I live to boot), including all the depravities caused by people with no job (because there simply arenÔÇÖt jobs available) and no way of living besides murder and theft and such not. No thank you, we donÔÇÖt want that here. quote: I think that falls into the whole God argument again but if that IS a human with a soul that can live on it's own, it's equal to murder to kill that child/fetus. Wahoo! ItÔÇÖs murder! Who cares? quote: Hmm, are you sure that's what the pope said? Even if he did, I think the possibility of it having a soul before then discounts abortion as a feasible idea (use birth control and be prepared to deal with the consequences if it doesn't work), and if there are abortions (which I am totally against), it should be determined by the point of time that the child can be removed from the mother's body and put on life support and still live and develop. IÔÇÖm sure that some pope said it, not necessarily the current one. As for removing the child and putting it on life support, who is going to pay for this? Not me, not the tax payers (a complete waist of money), and many people who have abortions would have no where near the funds for that kind of procedure. quote: That's why the Catholic church is against it, but it's not going to become a human being until after the sperm and egg are joined. If they never join, it was never growing into a human. And if the child is aborted, it never grows into a human being either (and please, you cannot call a fetus a human being), so there is no real difference. quote: Will PM you. Thank you, I look forward to receiving your message. And I read LitvyakÔÇÖs post (and how are you suppose to pronounce Litvyak anyway?) and I concur on every point. Very articulately stated, and very to the point. P.S. Dredd, if you donÔÇÖt have a new argument to present for a given point, please say so and if I similarly lack new arguments then we can drop the point altogether.

DidnÔÇÖt you forget in the oven?

Yea, but they will be sluggish overweight cruisers with cloaking devices. Cloaking devices are fun

Hah! ThatÔÇÖs nothing, try not eating and getting very little sleep (and at odd hours) for a couple of weeks, itÔÇÖs great fun! You get dizzy easily and everything is a bit fuzzy and off kilter. Of course, itÔÇÖs kind of hard to do anything that doesnÔÇÖt involve laying around or walking slowly while holding on to something, but thatÔÇÖs fun too

Oh dear, Im getting vertigo just scrolling along your post, but here goes quote: If people who are top scientists concede the fact that if there is a God, that He won't be able to be proven by science, then how can you hold your standard of believing to "If science can prove it". You CANT look to science and top scientists say that. I think we have sufficiently established that science cannot disprove religion. Therefore it stands to reason that if an individual was religious before they became a scientist there becoming a scientist would never disprove religion. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon for an individual who believes in god to attribute the unknown to god, and as a scientist (particularly in the hard sciences) is aware of so much more that is unknown then the average person it stands to reason that they would be at greater risk of attributing the unknown to god. Thus, it is not ones knowledge of science that determines whether they believe in god, but instead ones general philosophy on religion. Now, to cover your various arguments where you claim that science cant prove religion and shouldnt have to, Im not going to copy out quotes simply because you repeat a lot of the same stuff. You say that it is impossible to prove god with science. I ask then why should I believe? If I have no evidence of something I will not believe in it. It doesnt have to be scientific evidence, but it does have to be real, and it has to be in sufficient quantity (or quality) based on the nature of what I am expected to believe (believing the cat is in the house is easy, believing a shark is in the house is not), and more or better evidence must be available if the thing to be believed is important or otherwise relevant to me (that is, if someone down the street has a shark in there house, Im probably not going to say ok and take it at that, but if there is a shark in my house I will want some good evidence (a person I trust seeing it would probably be sufficient, depends on how hysterical they are though). Because I have no where near enough evidence to believe something as relevant and extraordinary as god, I choose not to. This doesnt mean that god doesnt exist, simply that I dont have a good reason to believe in him so I dont. You claim that miracles are impossible to prove by science, but this is not the case. First of all, how many miracles (statues bleeding and such not) are subject to intense scientific scrutiny. If a statue started bleeding when it was moved would you immediately ship it off to a university for the professors to pick over, test, and perhaps dismantle? Most people wouldnt, and thus no real evidence is collected. I remember hearing about an event where statues were drinking milk, some fourteen hundred people witnessed it, but was anyone there mixing radioactive isotopes in the milk so they could see where it goes? Nope. Most miracles are the kind that people are loath to study carefully or simply dont consider in need of studying. Furthermore, if we assume that these events are caused by supernatural entities, then we have a perfect explanation. We do not need a full fledged god, only lesser beings that are extremely hard to detect and possessed of supernatural abilities (that is to say, abilities not yet explained by science). Explains miracles perfectly, without ever even touching on the creation of the universe, or the one god, or any such nonsense. That brings me to your other argument that we dont know how the universe could have come into being so god must have done it. Sorry darling, but no such luck. As I have said before, that proves only the unknown. I do not know how the universe came into being and cannot explain it, but I will give you a little something to think on. If god has always existed before he created the earth (that is to say, he existed for an infinite amount of time) and infinity has neither beginning nor end (this is the definition, and one which you agree with in your last post) then god would never get around to creating the earth, having waiting an infinite amount of time to do so. Its the same problem with the big bang, and saying but hes god, he can do whatever he likes makes no sense. The ONLY sidestep for this would be for him to have come into being at some point, and thus there would be a finite amount of time between is coming into existence and the creation of the earth. This, however, would require that god came into existence, and like all things that would require a cause (gods dont just appear out of nowhere for no reason). If god truly was eternal he never would have gotten around to creating earth, and thus earth wouldnt exist now, and we wouldnt be having this debate. Oh, and darling, before you try to apply the same reasoning to a scientific origin of the universe, may I point out that that is exactly what you have been doing since you first started this line of reasoning, and I have repeatedly said that I dont know. And if you will recall, I clearly stated in the beginning of my first post that I can say I dont know without discrediting science or my argument. So where does that leave us? At a stale mate, arguing about the beginning of the universe and such will never suggest either divine or scientific creation. Please do not continue this line of discussion unless you have something new to add. quote: But if there IS a God, you'll never be able to prove them by science since they would be from a divine source, but you fail to accept the possibility that they are from divine sources. You maintain that until science explains them, they aren't divine. And if science does explain them, they aren't divine (obviously). Where are you leaving the LEAST possibility for there to being God, since under your logic, it's impossible to prove Him, no matter WHAT. Again, stalemate. There must be evidence to link an alleged miracle to god, and there will never be such evidence, and any scientific explanation of a miracle could simply be explained as god working through science, miracles will never give any real evidence for or against the existence of god. quote: EX: If you were standing somewhere and you suddenly had a vision of the Bible, and then the vision ended and you saw a statue of Mary floating in the air and blood (more blood than the statue could ever contain) was pouring out of its eyes, you would claim that it has to be able to be proven by science. If Jesus comes down riding of a firey chariot (or whatever Revelation said, it was close to it), and every believer in the world started worshipping him, you would probably maintain He is an alien. If he started healing people that touch him, and walking on water, making statues cry, quoting scripture, and doing things that no scientist could EVER explain, you'd claim that He has to be explained by science. I can play what if too. What if god came down and told you that there is no god? What if you woke up one day and your feet were on backwards and your hands were upside down? What if every time you wanted to say red you instead said blue and every time you wanted to say cat you instead said miniature giant space hamster? Oh, wait, heres a good one. What if you were taken into an underground prison and conditioned to not believe in god until you truly didnt believe in him? If I had a series of visions and miracles happen in my presence, I just might believe, but then the conditioning would get you, and I think we both know that neither event would prove the other right, but it would convince them. And again, if I did believe in god I would probably end up either a Satan worshiper (or if that was a waste of time) then simply not caring one way or the other. The what if game is pointless though, it proves nothing. quote: Actually, you just need clues/evidence that gets rid of reasonable doubt. You can never be SURE who killed someone (maybe an alien shot them from space and was playing games with us), but you have a lot of clues that points to a conclusion (just like God). Yea, but all of the clues of gods existence are circumstantial evidence, and you cant get convicted of murder of circumstantial evidence. The clues to convict a murderer also have to add up to a single whole, and in the end it is still possible to be wrong, and the system acknowledges this thus there is an appeal process. quote: Hitler sure didn't consider it a problem, and according to your morality, if he could have gotten away with it without getting killed or caught, it was fine. It was fine by Hitler, and it was fine by me, but it was a problem for you and most everyone else. This is called having an opinion that differs with the public norm. What is wrong and what is right is a matter of opinion, and thus a personal decision for everyone. quote: That's easily attributed to free will. The ability to reject God or not. There's also no reason to suspect that morality is a product of evolution since so many people have different moral beliefs. Ok, then god doesnt cause people to have morality, he simply judges them after they die. Until you die there is no way to prove one way or the other whether not morality is the product of god or evolution, and until you die it makes no difference. It still can be overcome, and it still exists relatively the same for most people. I dont see any point in continuing this like of argumentation, it is getting us nowhere. If you have any new points to add to this, feel free to do so, but do not rehash your old arguments, they didnt convince me then and they dont convince me now. quote: It doesn't toss out sex (there's no unique reason why doing it with more people is going to somehow increase the pleasure of it), and murder and torture can hardly be considered FUN, and regardless, common law tosses them out (you can't do em just about anywhere regardless of if you follow Christian morality) First of all, it does make sex a lot harder if (like me) your not married or if your partner isnt as interested in sex as your are, or simply doesnt do it for you, or any number of other reasons. As for murder and torture not being fun, some people would disagree, but my argument for them is simply that that it can be beneficial to murder or torture someone. As for the law, that has to be taken into consideration when decideing whether or not to commit an illegal act as a potential downside, but one shouldnt discount illegal activities as being beneficial simply because they may cause you legal problems. quote: You seem to leave no room for being wrong. You claim that science can explain everything, and if it can't right now, it doesn't prove that science can't explain everything (which is the logical conclusion), but that it will be able to later. First of all, thats not the logical conclusion (would it have been logical for someone in the renaissance to assume science would never provide a way for humans to fly?). Furthermore, I leave a way to be wrong in the possibility that there is a god and he simply isnt proven, but this is a small chance to be wrong as the chance of god existing is very small. Besides, where have you left a chance to be wrong? Would you please open a chink in your argument so that I may prove you wrong? quote: You disagree with the politic of being kind and loving to your neighbors, them acting the same way toward you, and "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Almost all people I know (religious or not), seem to have a desire to belong, but I get the impression that you want to be alone...? I dont like most people, in fact I think theyre scum (useful scum, but scum none the less). This is because Im a bit of a sociopath (a trait that I consider positive, by the way). Now, this doesnt mean I dislike everyone, Im perfectly capable of caring for people, its simply that there are very few people that I care for. Im also on the asocial side of things, so yes, I like to be alone, but not exclusively so. I have friends, and I spend time with them on occasions, I simply dont have very many and they arent very close. quote: Wow. Strong statement. Just curious/nosy, but it seems (I could be totally wrong) that your really hostile toward the world or hurt from it, or some negative attitude. If i'm right, mind sharing why? If i'm wrong, just ignore it. I dont mind sharing (you asked for it), though I truthfully dont think that Im hurt by the world, I simply despise most people. Dont take this as bad though, I wouldnt have it any other way, I like it that most people are small minded, easily manipulated, and otherwise pathetic, it makes things much easier. I suppose that I could explain this as a bad childhood, and perhaps it would be true. This isnt to say that I grew up in an abusive household, or that we were lacking for essentials, thats simply not the case, but that doesnt mean I was a happy child. I have always been distant from people, being much smarter then average and being incapable of really connecting with most people my age. Furthermore, I grew up in the country, and thus there were few people my age who lived near me, and while I was an active child I spent a lot of time by myself, entertaining myself. Thus I grew distant from my peers (who, in an intellectual sense, were not my peers at all). I dont know when I started despising people, but I have for as long as I can remember. Considering people less intelligent (not to mention less willing to be deceitful or cruel) then myself as blatantly inferior, it is no surprise that I came to manipulate them (though this wasnt until later, when I was really young I was to socially inept to manipulate most anyone). At some point in my life, I dont know when, I started considering myself ugly as well. No one ever said otherwise, and I was very critical of my own appearance, and, eventually, sometime after I gave up on caring how I looked, dressing only in black (everything black, from my hat to my socks and shoes, always al black) and in a series of virtually identical outfits so that I never had to bother with what to wear. I guess I didnt look very good, thinking back on the way I dressed and groomed myself it was no surprise I never figured out I was wrong until I was in college. Thats a long time to consider myself fat and ugly, even when I was truly neither (though I did look different, and that never helped me get along either). I also spent most of my youth despising emotions, considering myself above such things, and while this was not the case I was good enough at repressing them that I didnt even know I had emotions of any depth. In part this was a defense against teasing, something I got the brunt of in grade school and even more so in junior high (I never got teased in high school, dont as me why, but people didnt bother me much then), though I didnt truly become very unemotional until I was out of junior high, and perhaps that is why people didnt bother me in high school more then a little by a few people that had little or no effect (a few times I had a project sabotaged or such, but not often and not severely). I was described as having an attitude that said stand back, dont bother me up until I was in college (which was the beginning of a major turning point for me). I should also point out that I never really got in any trouble when I was young, and my mother never really had that much control of my life by my 15th year or so. Also, by the time I went to college I was good at manipulating others, including people I didnt know very well, and my mother had had pretty much around my little finger as it were. What does this mean? Basically that I learned morality neither through punishment nor through example by people whom I respected (after all, I respected no on but myself). What little contact I did have with my father (who lived rather plainly) was limited, but he never disproved of petty theft or any similar activity that I engaged in so long as I didnt get caught (which I never did), and knowing this I never had a problem telling him. I think we can safely say that I never got much morality from him. As I mentioned earlier, I never had any roll models early life, but later (sometime while I was in high school I think) I read about Elizabeth Bathory (there are probably a half dozen different spellings), the historical blood countess who killed over 600 virgins and bathed in there blood (or drank there blood) in the belief that it would improve her complexion. I cant say she was a role model, but I did kind of respect her at the time (and still do to a degree). I mentioned this because anything that ever even vaguely took the place of a roll model for me was a swath of historical and fictional characters, most of them rather nasty. Anyway, I dont know if this is truly the reason I am who I am today, but it contributed. To finish the story, at some point in college I figured a few things out (actually, it happened between quarters) and I changed a lot. Im no longer unemotional, I no long dress only in black (A lot of black, its still one of my favorite colors, but I wear a much greater variety), and I discovered that I truly do look good and began obsessing over my appearance. Not much else changed though, Im still smug and superior, considering most people scum (both because most arent as smart as me, and because they are hindered by morality), and Im more manipulative then ever. Im also a lot happier, and peruse personal pleasure as the ultimate goal in my existence. quote: Hmm, try reading the Bible. I doubt it'd change your beliefs, but it'd probably be a lot easier than me trying to explain the concept of God and His power and Christian spirituality. To try to put it in a small nutshell in response to your last post, it's like if there is a being that has supreme and total power (call it an Alien if you want), and that if you get him/her/it's bad side, your going to be in pain and suffering forever, and if your on his/her/it's good side, your going to be happy and in pleasure forever. So your logic runs that it would be easier for me to read the bible then it would be for you to explain the concept of god and his power and such not and so forth. Now thats my kind of logic (I would be proud if it wasnt me you were using it on). Also, you might want to consider that the bible may be biased. I mean, would you expect a book by Nazis to have an objective view on Hitler and the so called holocaust? Of course not, so why would a book by Christians have an objective view of god? quote: If your central focus is pleasure, i'd expect you to want to be near God for this rest of eternity (thus having pleasure) in exchange for giving up a few aspects of pleasure in this life. Yes, but what Im saying is that I doubt I would enjoy being with god, seeing that he and I simply do not agree on any of the fundamentals (including his existence). Anyway, what I consider enjoyable usually involves someone else considering it unpleasant (physical pleasure being a notable exception). Some how I dont think heaven is a place I would enjoy. quote: Yes, contraception works. Abortions are another moral issue, but since you don't have a problem with murder, and abortions can't be considered "pleasurable" (more like utilitarian), I don't see a point to arguing it. Well, true, but avoiding going through labor and having an unwanted child is rather unpleasant, and thats what abortions avoid. Thus they are not so much pleasant themselves as they avoid other unpleasantries. quote: Yes, it is possible to have a long term relationship without promiscuity, but the concept of it allows/leads to sleeping with many people men. If a woman wants to sleep around, it just enforced the gender hierarchy and thus hurts society and the woman. So what your saying is that it isnt premarital sex that is wrong, but promiscuity? That differs significantly from standard Christian morality. quote: Actually, I heard animals (not humans) do it for dominance. Male animals committing sodomy on other male animals do it in order to establish the power hierarchy since an animal being sodomized is physically and emotionally weak and defenseless ("screwed" if you use the slang term) No point to humans doing it. Ok, I dont know about animals doing it for dominance, but I do know that some animals are homosexual (and I know this for a fact, not simply having heard it somewhere). As for there being no point for humans, this is blatantly untrue (after all, why would people do something pointless?). If two men love each other and wish to have sex, then sodomy is rather the only way. By the way, I know that Christian morality prohibits homosexual men, but what about women? quote: Tell that to someone if they shoot you through the head with a shotgun. Obviously, murder causes a lot more harm to the world than any pleasure or help it brings. Besides, if you want population control, just nuke China. That would be rather hard, my jaw would be thoroughly broken and my brains spattered across the floor. As for nuking China, great idea except for the unfortunate effect of nuclear war and the environmental hazards of fallout. Now, a nice bit of biological warfare, that could just do the trick, perhaps something that rendered the victim sterile. quote: But it's still bad for society and people, and you could always somehow end up on the wrong side. Life is full of risks, nothing much I can do about that. quote: It's harmful to animals. And it's unnatural. And it could spread diseases (scientists don't research that because it's repugnant). Besides, christian morality is irrelevent to beastiality, murder, and torture, since in most of the world it's illegal anyway. Without Christianity, it still wouldn't be done. Well, without Christian morality there is nothing to prevent someone from deciding (as I have) that those are all perfectly acceptable activities. Sure, its bad for society, but I dont worry about society, I dont care about society, and anyone who does is missing something about life. As for bestiality being harmful to animals, if this should indeed be true it is of little relevance. Im not any more an animal rights activist then I am a human rights activist, sorry. As for disease, I doubt this would be any more risky then with a human (less actually, animals dont tend to spread STDs as well as people do and many diseases the affect animals wouldnt affect humans). As for unnatural, sure, but who cares, driving a car is unnatural. quote: I agree people are too trusting, but extramarital sex is proving that a little bit too far. Also, people can give the money if threatened with death without being killed over it. Being betrayed that much by extramarital sex can't be taken back, and is more likely to result in death via passion/emotion. And any individual who gets in such a situation is taking a risk, true, but then anyone who decides to leave there house is taking a risk. I dont advocate careless risk, but a little risk never hurt anyone (ok, so it did, but not that many people). quote: Also, the whole concept of extramarital sex also reinforced gender hierarchies just like with pre-marital. (men who sleep around are just using the other women as sex objects/tools, women who sleep around get the society label of slut, whore, etc) Well, again, this only happens if they sleep around (it is perfectly possible for someone to have a single extramarital partner, more common really as most women anyway are not inclined to sleep around). Anyway, Im not a feminist and I dont really worry much about gender hierarchies, Im perfectly okay with the way things are, after all it has always been possible for strong women to succeed in life despite the gender hierarchy. Makes life more of a challenge quote: Ok, just wondering, do you have sex with animals? It just is disgusting to think about because it is so perverted and unnatural. Well. um its like this No, Im not a zoophile and thus bestiality holds no real appeal for me. quote: C'mon, tell us, we're all accepting people around here, and besides, it's not really tasteless in the confines of this discussion. No. I will not discuss any illegal or amoral activities I may engage in on a public forum. It is both tasteless and a bad way to make friends. If would really like me to tell you send me a private message with your email address and I will email you, but it will be confidential. I read your lovely statement about your morality, I dont really have anything to argue against it that I havent already said, but I am curious about what you mean by natural law. Also, I will make an argument for abortion. quote: I am against abortion because I think that the possibility of it being a human life (and thus it being murder if you kill it) outweighs some woman's rights to keep the autonomy of her own body when it was her own choice to begin with to have sex (try this on for size, the best type of abortion is NOT HAVING SEX or USING BIRTH CONTROL (while knowing the chance something might go wrong)), in terms of rape, I think that abortion should still be illegal unless having the child would be harmful to the mother's help (she can always put it up for adoption, and if she puts so much value on an unborn life that she thinks it'd be too painful for her, then it's probably a human life anyway (since you aren't going to have a pre-determined care about a simple mass of cells)). First of all, I will say that this is not a topic that concerns me personally. Im completely sterile and will never have children, and while this isnt something I chose I wouldnt have it any other way. I simply dont have much a maternal instinct and wouldnt know what to do with a child if I had one (except that wonderful saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater). Now, that said, I definitely am for allowing women the choice. Despite birth control being dreadfully effective, people do mess up and mistakes do happen, and thus so do unwanted pregnancies. Adoption is an option, but this requires giving birth. A lot of men seam forget this. For a woman to have a child she must first endure nine months of pregnancy, getting more an more bulky through the entire process until she is virtually helpless. Then they have to go through labor, a process I dont think has ever been called pleasant and is most certainly bad for a womans figure. And the result is another unwanted child, and subsequently an unwanted increase in population. Abortions are good for society, both in that they prevent unwanted children (and before you start chanting adoption, there are plenty of children up for adoption as it is, we do not need more) and reduce population growth. As for morality, I dont see anything amoral (even by normal morality) about killing a bunch of cells, or a fetus. There is no way you could consider that a person, and even the pope says that a baby doesnt have a soul until 40 days before it is born. As for the argument that it will become a human being, the same argument could be used against birth control (after all, the effect is the same, the prevention of potential human being from having the opportunity for life). P.S. If you ever want to talk more directly, I would be delighted to chat with you on ICQ or some such. P.P.S. No long post is truly complete without a postscript or two.