Raven

quote: But God isn't a scientific theory, and never claims to be. The concept of God claims to deal with the soul and spirituality, which science has never even claimed to be able to deal with, but top scientific minds have agreed upon the existance of. Have you ever considered that maybe science intrinsically CANT prove God, since God and Christianity never CLAIM that He can be proven to exist in the physical/scientific world. You start from the assumption that science is first and can prove everything else, but if you start by accepting religion, and then science, you'll realize that science never disproves religion and they can both exist as they are two entirely different spheres. I believe science because it works, thatÔÇÖs demonstrable. Why should I believe in religion? You say that if you start out believing then science never disproves god, very true, but my question is why should I believe to begin with? And no, donÔÇÖt even start about the chances of going to hell and such not; you have yet to convince me that hell is so dreadful or to offer any evidence that would suggest god does exist. As for top scientific minds believing in god, one doesnÔÇÖt have to be a scientific materialist to be a good scientist. quote: Also, if we follow science, lets look at cause and effect all the way back to the beginning of the universe. If you believe in the greatness of science, then you'd agree that every effect has a cause (I know i've gone over this, but bear with me). In order for science to be true in all cases (as you, and most would claim), something OUTSIDE of the physical/scientific world, that can not be explained by science (AKA, GOD or other supreme being) had to have created it. Again, THIS DOESNÔÇÖT REQUIRE GOD! As I have said already, this proves only that the beginning of the universe is unknown. Yes, something had to cause it, but it wouldnÔÇÖt have to be outside of science and it wouldnÔÇÖt have to be god. This proves only that we donÔÇÖt know what happened, so quite trying to claim it suggests god exists. It doesnÔÇÖt! I refuse to attribute something to god just because I donÔÇÖt know what causes it. You talk about remaining open minded, well how about remaining open minded for an explanation besides god. I prefer to say I donÔÇÖt know then to accept a dubious ÔÇ£truth.ÔÇØ quote: Well, then they are the people who gives Christianity a bad name, since if there is a God, who is perfect, He wouldn't have had science and religion contradict, which they really don't. Simple enough, god (as any other mythological figure) is the product of the human mind, and therefore as flawed as those who thought him up. quote: But there's no reason why science should have to be able to prove the existance of God when God, under current understandings, would be impossible to prove by science to begin with. At the same time you claim that there needs to be evidence proving God exists, you also claim that miracles need to have evidence supporting that God caused them, or you attribute the cause to "something science hasn't been able to prove yet". Well, if science doesnÔÇÖt prove the existence of god then something else has to, I donÔÇÖt care what, but I need solid proof to believe in something as extraordinary as god. As for miracles, again, there is no proof that they canÔÇÖt eventually be proven by science (see, I can you the ÔÇ£you canÔÇÖt disprove itÔÇØ argument as well) and there is every reason to believe that they will be. Science has a long track record of proving ÔÇ£miraclesÔÇØ as nothing more then natural phenomena. As for requiring direct proof that they are acts of god, this should be obvious. If there is no solid empirical evidence to make a connection between god and the phenomena, then there is no reason to said connection. It works for everything else, but somehow you think god should get special treatment. If someone commits murder you have to have proof that they did it to convict them. If a factory is polluting the environment you have to be able to show how the pollution is getting from the factory to the environment (a dumping drain or unfiltered emissions or whatever). If someone wants to get money out of the bank they have to prove that they indeed put money into the bank to begin with. It works just fine for everything else, why shouldnÔÇÖt it work for god? The answer is simple, it doesnÔÇÖt work for god because nothing ever has solid empirical evidence that ties it to god, and so if we held religion to the same requirements as everything else no one would believe. quote: Think about the bleeding statues, visions, etc, things that are impossible to be proven by science. You say that they COULDNT have been created by God, but why not? They aren't explainable by science, so you assume (even though there are obvious religious connections), that science should be able to explain them? Visions can be hallucinations, thatÔÇÖs no problem. Bleeding statues are a little harder to address, though I would want to know if anyone took blood samples. It could be a hoax (think of all the hoaxes for UFO landings and aliens and such not), or it could be a real phenomena. I donÔÇÖt discount so called supernatural phenomena (ghosts and the like), though I will not believe in them without more evidence then there is now. Perhaps there are ÔÇ£supernaturalÔÇØ entities that cause these events, or perhaps there are aliens amusing themselves with us primitives. These are just as real possibilities as god, more probable actually because they make fewer assumptions, but you never even mention them as an alternate possibility to your ever so precious god. quote: Gotta respect people who know themselves and don't mind admitting unpopular views. (this was meant as a compliment, not as sarcasm) Thank you. quote: Nazi Germany sure didn't find it to be an atrocity. Constant propoganda and immersion can put universal morality aside and cause atrocities and possibly isolation (leaving someone with no influence) could. First of all, a lot of people in Germany considered the holocaust to be dreadful, including a lot of Nazis, but they simply couldnÔÇÖt do anything about it and even speaking out could get them or there loved ones killed. Another thing to point out is that the ease with which morality can be overcome suggests that it is not divine in nature but instead a product of evolution. quote: So in essence you exist/leech off the morality of others (since if yours was true for all, you know it'd be total chaos, and you know that "moral" people are generally tolerant). I can't insult your intelligence. Ok, so you will respect me if I admit my unpopular views and say ÔÇ£yea, pretty muchÔÇØ. Good, because youÔÇÖre right, in a way I could be called a leach or parasite, though truthfully I donÔÇÖt drain THAT much off of society. quote: How do you explain your own divergent moral views? (just curious) If you are asking how I came to them, I would say itÔÇÖs a combination if cynicism and self interest as well as a lack of discipline by my mother when I was young (I was the single child of an only parent and good at manipulating her). quote: But following Christian morality throws out very few of those "fun activities", keeps a society safer (for the most part), and solves the problem of me possibly being right. Actualy, Christian morality tosses out just about all of them (with the exception of drunkenness and arguing against religion). quote: Unless that being is not a product of science, which is what christianity maintains... Again, science covers everything. If it can interact with the physical world it has to have elements that are either energy or matter, and all energy and matter are covered by science. I accept the possibility of something existing besides energy or matter, but if it can interact with either then it simply must fall in the realm of science. quote: Also, my comment about there being an ultimate value that humans don't get yet was just a play off of your idea that science will one day explain everything that we attribute to God now. One day, science will discover the ultimate value in the universe and disprove the existance of infinity Hogwash. Science may be able to disprove anything being infinite, but infinity itself is a concept and not subject to proof. It is no more possible to disprove science then it is to disprove purple spots. Purple spots donÔÇÖt have to exist anywhere for them to exist as concepts, and neither does infinity. And because infinity is defined solely by its definition it has no begging or end, and never will. quote: There's always a point, such as being truly happy, but if your set against the idea that there is a more powerful being than yourself and that you should be able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as it makes you feel good, I doubt you'd be able to follow Christianity, even though (in my opinion) it'd be a good idea. IÔÇÖm not object to the idea of a supreme being (though again, I wonÔÇÖt believe in one without reason), my problem with god in this sense is that I donÔÇÖt like his politics. I disagree with him (if he even exists, which like I said I doubt) in a very fundamental way. We simply wouldnÔÇÖt get along. Sorry darling, but if I did believe in god I would be a Satanist. quote: What am I supposed to be doing that is going to make me enjoy myself more while i'm alive? Most of the activities you mentioned are self-degrading, with or without the existance of God. Bah, none of them are degrading unless you think of them that way. quote: The material world can never be totally explained by science. Humans are simply animals that can only act via senses, they can act via reason and thought. Since science can't explain everything, there must be some other realm, which many (including myself) believe is a spiritual realm which does/could include God. I believe in the unknown, which may or may not include a spiritual realm, but itÔÇÖs unknown and so (get this) I donÔÇÖt know. Lacking any real solid empirical evidence in a spiritual realm I choose not to believe in one. quote: I think that's oversimplyfying the concept. The idea is that there is God that created everything, including us and especially us. Our goal in life is to follow God's teachings and become closer to Him since He is all powerful and eternal. Bah, you could argue that my mom created me but that doesnÔÇÖt mean I have to try to be like her (nothing against me mom, but that is simply not how I want to live me life). As for all powerful and eternal, bully for him, I donÔÇÖt see why that should matter in the least. quote: When we die, it is scientifically proven that our bodies cease working and we essentially no longer exist in this world. If there is some sort of spiritual realm, as implied by Christianity, God is the only thing that matters there. If you aren't with God, which is the key to happiness, then you spend the rest of eternity unhappy and suffering. Of course, all of that is only if i'm right, but I think endless suffering would be worse than physical pain any day... How do you figure that god is the key to happiness, truthfully I donÔÇÖt see any reason to believe so. Furthermore, you say that the misery of going to hell is being away from god, but I think I have already established that god is not someone I would want to be around anyway. quote: 1. Not everyone uses contraception, and it sometimes doesn't work 2. Just an additional point. Pre-marital sex is degrading to women. There is a sort of taboo on women having pre-marital sex, less now than 100 years ago, but it still exists. Pre-marital sex is simply men subjugating women in the patriarchal society into sex objects. This occurs regardless of whether or not the woman is "enlightened" or getting pleasure from it or not, since society immediately shuns women (at least young women) who engage in pre-marital sex with many men as "whores", "sluts", "skanks", "tramps", etc. 1. Well, there are always abortions. And properly used contraception is phenomenally effective; it only fails when itÔÇÖs not used correctly. 2. Right, well, boo hiss at society. First of all, premarital sex doesnÔÇÖt necessarily mean promiscuity, it is perfectly possible to have a long term relationship without getting married, or having sex before the marriage date. But if a woman wants to sleep around, she should be able to make the choice for herself, rather then being dictated to by an obsolete mythology. quote: I'll just stick with the argument that there's nothing wrong with it except for homosexuals, and there's something wrong with that because it's against science. (there's no reason based in evolution or logic for homosexuality) Wrong, try again. Homosexuals (and transsexuals for that matter) occur in a number of animal species, including rats. And there is an evolutionary reason for homosexuals, among gorillas (for example) it reduces a population increases that is putting pressure on the group (I donÔÇÖt know the correct term, but neither pack nor heard seam appropriate) and to increase bonding among male gorillas. Thus it is a natural phenomena (and it is hardwired in the brain for that matter) and thus (assuming a religious point of view) must be because god wanted it to be so. quote: Still harmful to individuals (obviously) and soceity (chaos). Even if murders get caught, it's harmful to individuals when it happens, even if it brought the criminal "pleasure". So what, it would help with population control if nothing else. quote: If the government had that much power, society would go to hell since people could be tortured and killed out of the government's "pleasure" (desire for power), causing oppression of your "do whatever is pleasurable" mentality. Yea, but I never said I thought everyone should be able to do whatever they want, just me. Anyway, it would let the people in charge do pretty much whatever they want, and IÔÇÖm good at being on the right side of that type of equation quote: Was focusing on society and individual's health, but harm to the animal is a big one too. Also, I think AIDS came from monkey's in Africa or South America...I wonder how that did the cross-species jump. Yea, I remember hearing it was from sheep, but that doesnÔÇÖt make it true. I donÔÇÖt remember where aids came from (itÔÇÖs been a while since I took human sexuality) but I do know for a fact that it didnÔÇÖt come from animals. Any other objections to bestiality? quote: Extramarital sex? When you take a vow to stay with one person, and have sex with one person, and ONLY one person, breaking that vow undermines the trust in a society, and any children that may be raised by that "family" will be harmed deeply. Also harms society and individuals from jealous spouces killing the other poor sap. Bah! People are to trusting anyway, it would be good for them. As for jealous spouses, well, thatÔÇÖs like saying having money is wrong because someone might kill you for it, completely barmy idea. quote: I'm not going to literally hurl, or even had the desire to, was just exaggerating. But beastiality and incest *IS* disgusting, and torture is just repugnant. If you take a poll, I bet at least 95/100 people would find one or both of them disgusting. I realize you were speaking metaphorically, but my point was there is nothing disgusting about any of it. Oh, sure, society as a whole might object, well boo hiss too society. quote: Morally offensive? C'mon, there is no objective morality, remember? Pleasure is good/moral, and if you liked it, shouldn't be a problem telling us... Yea, but it still is tasteless to go on about how one does something that is morally objectionable to most everyone who will hear them. P.S. Why donÔÇÖt you explain your interpretation of Christian morality, after all I explained my idea of morality, itÔÇÖs only fair that you explain yours.

ItÔÇÖs so.

I almost never use my fighters anyway, though my four mk3 shuttles are very useful.

This game is definitely on my list to get.

Yes, congratulations, I hope you like it here.

quote: You really should read the Bible Dragon Lady. It's got sex, murder, war, and a bunch of other really nasty stuff. YouÔÇÖre probably right you know, itÔÇÖs been something IÔÇÖve been considering off and on for a while. quote: Don't know if you are aware but Sodomy comes from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrha (spelling?). Not to insult if you already knew. The correct spelling is Gomorrah and yes I was aware, though only vaguely so.

Nifty goat.

Nice idea, nice graphics, but otherwise not so hot. The interface is ok, but is focused more on aesthetics then on functionality. Aesthetics are great, I dress for aesthetics, but I want my GUI to be efficient as well as pretty. Maybe it would be fun for kids, or for people who donÔÇÖt really use there computer a lot, but for those of us who are serious users it is just too inefficient. IÔÇÖd also be worried about leaving it on in the background while doing any kind of gaming or high end graphics, the last thing I want is a peace of eye candy wasting system resources while IÔÇÖm playing BCM.

quote:It's here! Check this out!Yea, and thatÔÇÖs my violon in the background about to barbecue them

I donÔÇÖt know, but I remember how annoying it was when Dredd was using the same avatar as I was.

If the chicken revolution includes revolutionary new ways of cooking chicken, then count me in

quote: Well, it all had to start somewhere, and my two options are still the only concievable ones, except they would be amorhpous based on scientific discoveries. IÔÇÖm not going to argue this point, its not that important, but what I was trying to say is that you should be open to the unknown. Perhaps the universe hasnÔÇÖt always existed but wasnÔÇÖt specifically created, perhaps it is but a part of a larger whole and its origins are based there in, I donÔÇÖt really know. However, I could see dichotomizing it into either a purely scientific answer (that is, no divine influence at all), or a divine answer (though not necessarily exclusively divine, lots of people think that god works through physics and such not). quote: There aren't any other choices, and you can't assume that they are based on logic/reason without conceding my logic that since you CANT disprove God, He must exist I hope IÔÇÖm misinterpreting this or taking it out of context, but if youÔÇÖre saying what it looks like your saying then your reasoning couldnÔÇÖt be more flawed. Just because god canÔÇÖt be disproven doesnÔÇÖt necessitate his existence any more then the invisible and immaterial pink rabbit on my bed exists because I canÔÇÖt prove he doesnÔÇÖt. quote: I'm not contesting the existance of the universe, i'm contesting the SOURCE of the universe, and that can't be proven, and the universe currently existing doesn't even prove the source AT ALL, unless it's proving (under current logic) that something HAD to have created it (God, or another being, which would have had to have been created by something...) I donÔÇÖt know where the universe came from, itÔÇÖs a nice topic for speculation but not something I seriously worry about. IÔÇÖm not going to get into any more of a debate about where the universe came from simply because I donÔÇÖt know, but assuming it was god seams ridiculous because there is no evidence that it was god. I prefer to accept that I donÔÇÖt know then pretend that I do. quote: Hmm, I might have to agree with you, at least partially. I think i'd have to agree that most religious reasoning is based on God existing, since if it was based solely on science, everyone would believe in God. I think you oversimplify it though. It is more about being *open-minded* to the idea of God existing, then attributing astounding qualities of the world, life, and fundamental concepts that almost all humans agree to Him. Open mindedness is great, but an open mind is like an unfiltered email account, your going to get a lot of trash for ever little bit of value. Open mindedness doesnÔÇÖt necessitate considering everything as a serious possibility, simply not discounting it without reason. I do not discount religion without reason as I believe I have amply demonstrated. quote: Scientific theories are formed out of hypothesis which ARE pre-assumed causes, that are proven (temporarily) or disproven. Yes, but the evidence is used to construct the hypothesis which then only stands if it can be sufficiently demonstrated to be true, and only until a better hypothesis comes around. Religious thinking produces an idea (the existence of god, say) and then starts attributing things to him without any evidenc that this is the case, and never once attempts to disprove god (except in the case of another religion, which is really only trying to demonstrate that they are right) and never really subjects the theory of god to any serious challenges. quote: Besides, scientific and religious reasoning is not mutually exclusive. Religious and scientific reasoning never contradicts, so it's not a choice between the two. They both work together. What about the age of the earth? If you take genesis literally then the earth isnÔÇÖt near as old as science has shown that it is. Science isnÔÇÖt mutually exclusive with religion, it simply doesnÔÇÖt support it. Nothing logically supports religion. quote: "Religion without science is lame, but science without religion is blind."-Albert Einstine Bah! Quoting Einstein (which you misspelled by the way) isnÔÇÖt a very good argument. For all that Einstein was a brilliant scientist; he wasnÔÇÖt so hot in a lot of other areas. quote: I think you seem amoral (or maybe not depending on your personal code), but I don't think that makes you "bad" or "evil". I do however believe that your mindset, in principle and application, allows for atrocities which most of society, and I hope you, would find morally repugnant and against all human decency. I think I explained my sense of morality and right and wrong earlier in this thread somewhere, I donÔÇÖt know, but IÔÇÖm not going to get into it unless asked. As far as atrocities go, there only atrocious if you think of them that way. quote: Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to exterminate the Jews. The KKK thinks it's right to eliminate blacks, catholics, and other minorities. Greenpeace thinks it's right for humans to die if it saves the environment. Serial killers often think it's right to kill innocent people. Child molestors and rapists think it's allright to violate other people. And you bring up these things because the nearly universal consensus is that they are atrocities. You doubt the morality that can exist without god, yet you assume that IÔÇÖm going to see these things as wrong even though I have stated repeatedly that my own moral code is wildly different from most peoples. This only reinforces my point that you donÔÇÖt need god to have morality, people manage just fine on there own. And for the record, I consider the so call holocaust to have been in truly bad taste (I donÔÇÖt approve of irrational hate, such as racism or the likes, itÔÇÖs as stupid as it is pointless). For similar reasons I think the KKK are complete yahoos. Greenpeace is both correct and incorrect, the environment is important and individual people are of little value, but there way of going about things isnÔÇÖt going to help. Serial killers are generally accepted as being nuts, and I donÔÇÖt have much respect for the violently insane, and again itÔÇÖs in very bad taste. Child molesters generally are missing something upstairs as well, and again, usually act irrationally and with bad taste. So, as you see, I donÔÇÖt really support any of the things you have mentioned, even though my sense of morality is completely non-standard. quote: By not having a common or predetermined form of morality, it justifies the changing of laws to suit the whims of the majority of a population, and it justifies atrocities as the ones listed above. Sure, on a small scale, me not having a code of morality and stealing $5 for someone isn't going to ruin society, but when every person in the world does it, or one of the examples I listed happens, it's different. First of all, the lack of divine morality justifies nothing, it simply allows everyone to choose whether something is justified on there own, and most people will choose to follow the same basic code no matter what, and some people will chose there own ideas of right and wrong no matter what. quote: The analogy wasn't based on the idea that God probably exists or has to exist, your just grouping me under the stereotype of "since he believes in God, all of his premises are based there". My analogy is based on the concept that you wouldn't shoot a gun into a totally dark room since you shouldn't automatically ASSUME no one is in the room because of the impacts of being wrong. Just because you don't KNOW if someone is in the room doesn't mean you should assume there isn't. That analogy applies to God because you shouldn't automatically ASSUME God doesn't exist when the downside to that is so immense. Just because you don't KNOW if there is a god doesn't mean you should assume there isn't. I donÔÇÖt automatically assume god doesnÔÇÖt exist, and I object with your analogy only because it makes it appear as though there is probably someone in the room and because it provides no good reason to shoot the gun. If there was a valid reason to shoot, then your analogy would carry some weight, but you make it sound as though there is absolutely no reason to fire the gun. quote: Your analogy is based on the premise that you KNOW if there is someone in the room (the existance of God), that you KNOW (almost certain) there is no God, and that our purpose on this earth is not detemined by God, but that we are "there for" (here for) doing whatever we want, and there's a very small chance that there is a god. Mine is based on the idea that when you don't know something that is important and could have bad consequences, you don't ASSUME the opposite answer to the bad consequences (in the case of God, that He doesn't exist). To your first point last, you neither assume the bad consequences nor the good ones, you instead make an educated guess and act according to the probability of either being the case. In this case, the possibility of god existing is so low that I donÔÇÖt really worry about it. To your first point, it is almost certain (from a purely scientific perspective) that there is no god. ItÔÇÖs like the man behind the target, there is no reason to suspect there is a person there, but it isnÔÇÖt completely impossible either. By the way, I completely ignored you point about having fun not being what where here for because it had no relevance to my post. quote: Anyway, back to the point, disagreements don't prove religions wrong, it just proves human infallibility. The central concept of Christianity has been alive for about 1980 years, only the periphrials change. I concede the point, though I was never trying to prove anything to begin with. quote: Nah, infinity can be comprehended, mathematicians talk about it all the time, and it seems simple to me. Infinity is a series of numbers (which can be used for measurement) that starts and continues to the highest (or lowest) possible value (which humans can not determine). Wrong again, darling, there is no highest and no lowest and by suggesting that there is you show that you do not understand infinity. And yes, mathematicians can work with infinity, but there isnÔÇÖt much you can do with it. You cannot perform any of the basic computations on it (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division), and most math is based on those function (as well as a few more, such as square roots and such, which are equally impossible to perform on infinity). quote: It's theorized to be really bad. Also theorized that being with Him is very, very, very good. I guess it falls into the moral code too, if you follow/believe in the moral code/teachings of God, and you end up with Him, you'd probably enjoy it, but if you don't, you probably wouldn't. So youÔÇÖre saying that if I believe god and his teachings are ever so much fecal matter then I would enjoy hell more anyway. IÔÇÖm certainly not going to disagree. quote:...I don't get it, sorry... Sorry, I thought you would know the old fable about the emperorÔÇÖs new clothes. IÔÇÖm not going to go in depth, but the story goes that there was an emperor, and some chaps sold him ÔÇ£invisible clothesÔÇØ, which were sure to become the height of fashion. So, the next day the emperor wore his ÔÇ£invisible clothesÔÇØ, secure in the knowledge that he was in fact wearing something. He wasnÔÇÖt, and he went to court in the nude. There is more to the story, but I donÔÇÖt remember it all. The comparison IÔÇÖm trying to draw is that belief without logic can easily result in your being dreadfully wrong (like the emperor). In your case it is belief in god, and politeness prevents me from going any farther into it then that. quote: First, to address the possibility of endless punishment/suffering/pain/separation from God, if you believe in the Christian or (probably Jewish or Islamic God), that separation would be the worst possible thing that could possibly EVER happen. That sounds like a zealots reasoning (and let me make it clear that IÔÇÖm not calling you a zealot, simply that a zealot probably came up with it to begin with). Are there any actual references in the bible to what hell is like above and beyond being separated from god? quote: As for personal pleasure, I have nothing wrong with it, but I fail to see the problems with gaining it within the Christian concept of morality. (I would state my issues with everyone "valuing their enjoyment of life" as the most important thing, but I already stated the atrocities that can justify if everyone did whatever it was they wanted to enjoy their life...) Well, personal pleasure is the ultimate point to my existence, you can think differently for yourself. I would say that I hope you find happiness from your philosophy, but I think that would be beside the point. As far as atrocities go, there only atrocious if you think of them that way. quote: The Christian concept of morality, doesn't preclude getting pleasure, and most of the points of that morality, if not all, seem to have logical fact basis for them. I fail to see how Christian morality precludes any activities that are not harmful to either: 1. Society's health 2. An individual's health Could you show me some examples of pleasure that Christian morality (not specific church doctrine), precludes? (the only reason I say not specific church doctrine is because some idiotic organizations...like the Catholic Church...are against the distribution of BIRTH CONTROL to third world countries with high AIDS rates. just because one christian church has a stupid position doesn't mean that Christian morality, as a whole, is flawed) IÔÇÖll list a few things that come to mind, I donÔÇÖt know how many of them are prohibited by Christian morality rather then church doctrine so feel free to point out any that Christian morality allows. Premarital sex Sodomy (and I donÔÇÖt just mean for homosexuals) Theft (money may not buy happiness, but it helps) Murder (personal gain counts for pleasure) Torture (Elizabeth Bathory had plenty of fun with that, though IÔÇÖm not sure if torture is prohibited by Christian morality) Incest Arguing against religion (hey, I find it quite enjoyable) Bestiality (I imagine that itÔÇÖs covered by sodomy, but IÔÇÖll put it in anyway). Drunkenness (Again, I donÔÇÖt know if itÔÇÖs prohibited, but am adding it anyway) Extramarital sex (IÔÇÖm fairly sure this one is prohibited, something about not coveting thy neighbors ass ) Need I really go on? (And by the way, just because I listed something here doesnÔÇÖt mean I do it or would consider doing it. Drunkenness, for example, is not something I find appealing.) quote: You aren't coming off negatively or tactlessly, at least to me. Thank you. quote: Besides, I don't know how I come off, probably cold, argumentative, and somewhat hostile, but I never worry about the tone or tact of my writing (although I often regret it when misunderstood). Truthfully, you come off as stubborn and opinionated, as well as a little illogical, but thatÔÇÖs just my view, I imagine people who agree with you think differently. By the way, congratulations on getting 600 posts. [ 09-18-2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Of course they will, because a REAL MAN would never use his EMD jammer. I, on the other hand, have never been hit by a missile with my EMD jammer running.

quote: Real men use guns. Real men arenÔÇÖt the only ones who use guns. I only use missiles against fighters and similarly pathetic (if hard to hit) crafts.

I donÔÇÖt know, I think the constitution is long overdue for a revamp. IÔÇÖm not saying that the meaning needs to be changed, for the most part its just fine, but some parts need to be brought up to date. Part of the problem in interpreting the constitution is that the wording is so archaic that it becomes vague and successively easier to interpret however you like. Furthermore, there are a number of modern issues (electronic surveillance and wire tapping, for example) that were simply never thought of back then, and there will be more and more such issues in the decades to come. IÔÇÖm not saying the constitution should be materially changed, simply that it needs to be updated with minimal change in its meaning. quote: This time, I have a special request: When our Electives sit down to revamp the Constitution, can we all pray they do it right this time, and make it THE foundation of the United States, and make the original document unchangable without 75% of the American Adult Public (Public, not voters) petitioning its change, and 2/3rds of Congress agreeing. If you could get 75% of the adult population to petition anything for change you could give lectures on mind control. While a noble idea, it would immobilize congress for the purpose of altering the constitution. It would be impossible; I doubt tat 75% of the population even interests themselves enough in politics to petition anything. Even requiring a 75% agreement by those who vote is ridiculous, it would simply never happen. With this system, slavery would never have been abolished, women would never have gained suffrage, and we would have the constitution and its 10 amendments just like they were when they were first written down. [ 09-18-2002, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

ROTFLMAO! That last one was just too rich.

quote: Yes, the universe exists, but the reality behind the universe existing is what you have to have faith in. I dont think there's a third option from waht I listed. Either the universe always has been and always will be, or God always has been and always will be. Yes, I admit that, logically, it's slightly less probable that there is a God since it's one more step. Regardless, the fact that the LOGICAL/RATIONAL likelihood of each is so small, there's no reason why you would immediately dismiss the existance of the universe as a clue (not proof) for God, since the idea that everything has to be caused by something would lead one to believe that SOMETHING caused the Big Bang/The Universe. Ok, first of all, just because you canÔÇÖt think of a third reason doesnÔÇÖt mean there isnÔÇÖt one. Furthermore, if the only two possibilities are the existence of god or that the universe has always existed then they cannot both be unlikely simply because only one can be true. Add in a few more options, on the off chance that there are possibilities that you may not have considererd (something besides god as you think of him is an example), and you still will have to have some possibilities that are not all that improbable. However, this is erelivent because whether or not the universe has always existed is, from the point of modern science, indeterminable with any great amount of accuracy. However, we do know that the universe exists and thus there is no probability involved, it is a given. This is no evidence that god exists, and even the so called clues that have been given are really only proof of the unknown and do not point specificly to the Christian god, and often not to any god or anything in particular. Religious reasoning is based on god existing, and then connecting various events to his work. Scientific reasoning is based on proven theories and questioned hypotheses that may or may not be true, and evidence is put together without a pre assumed cause. quote: What?! What advantages of not believing in a God? You get to do whatever you want without any punishment beyond those that humans set up?!? That just pushes the idea that might makes right and morality (right/wrong) is defined by those in power. IÔÇÖm unhindered by the classic ideas of morality, and I consider myself better off because of this. You may think this makes me amoral and bad (or perhaps evil, depending on whether you want to sound like Bush), but I donÔÇÖt see it as wrong in the least, I have my own ideas of morality. I consider my lack of classic morality to be a form of freedom; I was able to choose my own ideas of right and wrong based on my own judgment. Just because your ideas are different doesnÔÇÖt mean that I am amoral, simply that I am different. What does this have to do with what you are saying? Simple, the advantages of not having a predetermined code of morality is the freedom to determine your own ideas of right and wrong. quote: Also, if a mosquito lands on your hand, there's an extremely high chance that it's going to suck your blood, and it's empirically proven. In order to avoid harm, you kill the mosquito. That doesn't really relate to the idea of God and faith and risk. My analogy still applies the best since it applies directly to the concept. No one should/is ever going to carry out an action that could possibly cause them intense pain and suffering for the rest of their lives unless the alternative choices are worse. Shooting into a dark room where people could be is an example of that. The belief in the existance of God is just an amplified version of that, since the result of refusing God would be external pain and suffering for the rest of time due to a separation from God. Bah, I donÔÇÖt see how accidentally shooting someone in a dark room on accident compares to not believing in god. You make it sound like its obvious, and that there is no reason to shoot in that room and every reason not to. Furthermore, you make it sound like itÔÇÖs reasonably probable that you could hit someone. Lets try a slight variation on your analogy, where instead of shooting in a dark room your shooting a rifle at a target a good distance away, and you have to consider the possibility of someone standing behind the target and that you could hit them if you shot. There is a reason to shoot, thatÔÇÖs what your there for after all, it is a form of personal entertainment or some such and you enjoy it. There is a reason (however small) that you shouldnÔÇÖt shoot, after all you could kill someone (if they happen to be standing behind the target, and were assuming the target is made of something the bullet will pass through). quote: Yes, but time is infinite, and the Christian belief system that I believe in is that when you die you are either separated from God forever (the rest of time, which is infinite), or you aren't, and that separation or companionship with God is either infinitely bad (the worst thing possible to the greatest degree possible), or infinitely good. Bah, infinity is infinitely incomprehensible to the human mind so in effect youÔÇÖre talking about things that you simply canÔÇÖt understand. None of us can, itÔÇÖs impossible. quote: I've gone through many different stages of religious belief for awhile, and I can't think of any version of hell that isn't "all that bad", unless you buy into the extremely illogical version of all the sinners partying all night long and the "good" people floating in clouds. Now thatÔÇÖs my idea of hell Seriously though, how bad is being separate from god? I personally find the possibility of there being a god terrifying (not dreadfully so, because I donÔÇÖt consider it to be anywhere near likely, but itÔÇÖs like thinking about living in government such s the one in 1984, a plain unpleasant thought even though you know it is extremely unlikely). You can take comfort that you will be happy for all eternity after you die, but IÔÇÖll skip out on that one. quote: Hmm, i'm not entirely sure about how long you suffer in hell, but i'm pretty sure the passage says that the sinners will be sent to His left and the others to His right and the ones on His left will be separated from the Father forever. Regardless, even if it isn't the infinity of time, the infinity of the pain and suffering would probably be enough too to make up for the time (since if you believe in God, there's no reason He can't do it) No, IÔÇÖm fairly sure there is a judgment day, and while IÔÇÖm not sure what happens to people in hell, my understanding is that they cease to exist or some such. Of course, most modern Christians like to forget about parts of there religions they donÔÇÖt like, such as hell and Armageddon and women being inferior and bringers of corruption and need I go on? quote: So your assuming indifference is safer than taking a stance? If you believe in the theory that the opposite of love is apathy/indifference, and the opposite of hate is apathy/indifference, then your probably a lot more likely to piss off the big guy upstairs by doing nothing. I don't see anything wrong with not worrying about which Religion/God is right, but I do strongly believe that everyone should follow, for the most part, the Christian concept of morality and good/evil. Then IÔÇÖm evil, woot, time to celebrate! I donÔÇÖt take the path of apathy or indifference because I wish to avoid love or hate. I canÔÇÖt say IÔÇÖm a loving person, for the most part IÔÇÖm not, and Love clouds your judgment just as much as hate does. Of course, IÔÇÖm not a hating person either, so perhaps on the scale of love and hate IÔÇÖm indifferent. But only a Christian would consider love and hate to be so important. On the scale of nice or mean IÔÇÖm on the mean side, on the scale of social or antisocial IÔÇÖm leaning towards antisocial, I could go on, but thatÔÇÖs beside the point. Love and hate are not the ultimate measures of anything. quote: Faith is based on the truth one feels and believes. ItÔÇÖs like the emperor and his new clothes darling, and IÔÇÖm not the one running around in the nude. quote: I have faith, I just also reconcile any doubts that I should do "whatever I want and forget God and morality" with the idea that if I do that, there's the chance i'm going to REALLY, REALLY, REALLY regret it later. You need to have fun darling, get laid, beat up your younger sibling, whatever, but if you consider giving up personal enjoyment in the present on the faint possibility that you could be punished for all eternity (if being deprived of god is really so bad) after you die, your wasting your life. There is nothing but your pleasure to worry about, IÔÇÖm not saying live only in the present with no thought for the future, but if you value anything higher then your own enjoyment of life then you have your priorities backwards. And I apologies if IÔÇÖm coming off all *****y and tactless tonight, but I didnÔÇÖt get near enough sleep last night.

quote: Ditto for the mosquito: you wouldn't kill it thinking chances are, it's not sentient. You'd kill it KNOWING it's not sentient, without proof or evidence. Nice try, but my experience with mosquitoes, and I have no doubt that entomologists around the globe would agree with me on this, is that they are not sentient. I have never heard of a sentient bug, or any non-human for that matter, and I feel its reasonable to believe (based on my knowledge of such things) that should solid evidence of a sentient bug be discovered (and assuming it is supported by the scientific community, which would be understandably skeptical of such a thing) that I would have heard of it. Now, we can argue the point that mosquitoes may be sentient and that we simply canÔÇÖt tell, but that seams a waist of time. All evidence suggests that mosquitoes are not sentient and that sentience takes billions of years to develop. Please explain why my faith in the non-sentience of mosquitoes is blind and ÔÇ£without proof or evidence.ÔÇØ quote: who did I call stupid....Miss. Dragon Lady? I didn't call anyone any names. For the record. My apologies, you referred to his idea as ÔÇ£utter stupidityÔÇØ when in fact it was not utter stupidity. I admit that there is a difference between calling someone stupid and calling there idea stupid, but now weÔÇÖre quibbling over semantics and that I simply refuse to do.

LOL That really is too much.

quote: no that's just utter stupidity. faith is belief in things not seen, and no proof of their existence. not that stupid analogy aforementioned. Actualy, there is no proof that you couldnÔÇÖt fall off of a 100 story building and survive, or perhaps even end up with little or no damage. Such things are very rare (unless you have a parachute, but thatÔÇÖs something different entirely) but they do happen. If I recall correctly the current record for the longest fall survived is something like six thousand feet, and while the record for the longest fall taken with relatively little damage is lower then that, itÔÇÖs still higher a 100 story building. When you call someone stupid, make sure youÔÇÖre not the one whoÔÇÖs wrong, it sounds really bad. quote: Hmm, but i'd have to disagree with you there. A person with a totally closed mind wouldn't accept the risk analysis, but anyone that has an open mind at all or any sort of logic would give it some weight since it's impossible to disprove the existance of God. The fact that the universe exists and everything has a cause means that you have to have faith in one of two possibilities: 1. God created it (and God always was). 2. The universe always was (was=existed). Under your logic, a skeptic would dismiss both, since you can't prove either. Of course the concept of God is slightly less likely since it's an additional step back, but both are highly improbable. Actually, darling, a skeptic would say I havenÔÇÖt a bloody clue and leave it at that. Theorizing on how the universe came into being can be fun, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that I would put a lot of faith in those theories. The universe does exist, this is obvious, and whether it always existed is fairly irrelevant, but god is not proven to exist. ItÔÇÖs like in quantum physics where you consider a particleÔÇÖs location to be a probability curve until its location is measured. The universe exists as it does today, no probability involved, but god may or may not exist, and thus exists only as a very minute probability. quote: Now my point: Just because I cant PROVE that there's someone in the room/that there is a God, I'm not going to ASSUME there isn't anyone in the room/that there isn't a God, since if i'm WRONG, I'd kill someone/I'd go to hell. The way you do risk analysis is simple: Probability of result * Seriousness/Impact of result= Risk Interesting analogy, except that you have all the probabilities wrong and you fail to note the advantages of not believing in god. A better example would go that a mosquito lands on your hand, and you must decide either to kill it so that it doesnÔÇÖt drink you blood or spare it on the off chance that it has randomly mutated into a sentient being as intelligent as humans. Now, I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I wouldnÔÇÖt bother even considering that it may have evolved sentience, it is simply to infinitesimally improbable, and so I would swat the damn thing. quote: Even if the probability of the Christian God existing is .00000000000001%. The impact of having him pissed at you when you die is infinity. .00000000000001% * infinity = infinity, thus, you don't want to risk the impact, just like you aren't going to do something that could kill someone (although that impact isn't infinity, it is pretty close since murder is really, really bad). First off, nothing is close to infinity. If you hade a googol printing stations each printing out a googol digits a second (that a googolplex digits a second) for the next googol years you would not approach infinity by even the smallest margin, you would in fact be infinitely far away from infinity having made exactly no progress. Now, you might have the chance of god existing based on current evidence however. So take that preposterously large number you just finished writing down (you did write it down didnÔÇÖt you?) and you compare it to the disadvantage of going to hell (which is not necessarily all that bad, depending on your view of hell), keeping in mind that (if I recall correctly, and IÔÇÖm no expert on the Christian mythology) you donÔÇÖt actually suffer in hell for eternity, just until judgment day, and so there is no conceivable way you could calculate the disadvantage of going to hell as being infinity. However, I simply donÔÇÖt worry about it at all. Sure, I COULD go to hell, but the probability against it is just not worth worrying about, after all, it is just as likely that god exists entirely different from the Christian mythos and I would go to hell (or some equivalent) if I did worship him in the Christian manner.

Well, IÔÇÖm glad I never got into the sims to begin with, because this looks like its going no where but down.

It looks like IÔÇÖm confusing the both of you. Well, IÔÇÖm agreeing with Dredd insofar as his faith is not based on risk analysis, and IÔÇÖm going on to say that the inverse is true, his so called risk analysis is based on faith. There is no empirical evidence that shoes god exists, therefore the probability of there being a god can only be calculated as infinitesimally low (similar to the probability of a secret cult of aliens living beneath the surface of mars, theoretically possibly but highly implausible). Thus, any true risk analysis based on the existence of god would take in the extremely unlikely chance of there being a god and would show that there is no real advantage to believing in god. However, if we were to take the view of someone who either believes in god or who isnÔÇÖt really sure, then the risk analysis turns out the other way. Rather then taking the logical path that places the probability of god existing as infinitesimally small, a person who believed in god would consider the probability of god existing as 100% and someone who wasnÔÇÖt really sure would consider godÔÇÖs existence to be reasonably probable. If either of these premises are true (that god exists, or that there is a reasonable chance god exists) would cause Dredds risk analysis to show that believing in god was advantageous. Thus, this logic will only convince someone who isnÔÇÖt sure or who truly believes in god, but not a true skeptic.

Gack, where do you find this stuff Grayfox?

quote: My shot at the immateriality of the mind: It is logically possible, however actually (from an empirical perspective) improbable, that I (that is to say, my "mind") am not my brain, and that neither my brain nor my body exist. It is not logically possible to doubt my existence. (I think, therefore I am--Descartes) Therefore, my brain and I have different properties--my brain has the property of "doubtability" and I do not. Only entities with the same properties are identical. (Identity of Indiscernibles--Leibniz) Therefore, my brain and I are different entities. Logical flaw here, you say that entities with the same properties are identical, but this is inclusive, it in no manner prevents entities with different or divergent properties from being identical as well. Furthermore, this does nothing to prove the immateriality of the mind, only to ÔÇ£proveÔÇØ that the mind and brain are not absolutely identical. I will postulate that the brain is the mechanism though which your consciousness works, and your mind is the bioelectrical reaction that is going on at the time. This nicely distinguishes between the two sufficient for them to be considered separate entities as your ÔÇ£proofÔÇØ requires. quote: Having faith in Jesus's existance doesn't make it "true" in ANY WAY if Jesus DID NOT EXIST. Having faith that there is no God doesn't make God magically disappear so that it's "true for you". "I have faith that if I jump off this 100 story building, I will live." Hey, it's true for me since I have that faith, so when I hit the ground, i'll be in perfect health. Absolutely wonderful analysis, and absolutely correct. There are some things belief can alter, particularly those things dependant on your perception or on your internal chemistry, but beyond the very limited world of your body belief has no direct power, and even there its influence is minimal at best. quote: Well, i've heard that you use reason/logic/brainpower to get to a point where you CAN have faith. My risk calculus just gets rid of the question of "What IF i'm wrong?". I have faith, it's just that my thinking helps me discount some of the doubts which just about everyone has. IÔÇÖm afraid I have to agree with Dredd on this point as well, there is no way that a logical, thought out, risk analysis would determine that believing in god is for the better because there is no logical reason to believe god exists. Furthermore, on infinitesimally small chance that god does exist, it is even more unlikely that he fits into the Christian mythos sufficiently that believing in him would make a difference. Thus we can see that this logic is derived to support faith, but stand up only under the premise that god either exists as imagined or probably exists as imagined. Any true skeptic would immediately dismiss this as preposterous.