At 11/24/09 03:44 PM, blazer133 wrote: He did exist. there are pictures and videos of him.

You are mistaken.

At 11/24/09 04:24 PM, Memorize wrote: Kind of ironic considering the biggest mass murderers of the last century were atheists.

Gott mit uns.

Let's face it, the only reason any of the right-wingers in this thread agree that the scientists manipulated their results is because they are so eager to continue living in their magical infallible capitalist bubble that they would rather take to belittling and demeaning the validity of science by subtly indicating belief or support for far-fetched conspiracy nonsense propaganda involving a large percentage of the scientific community as well as political and social institutions around the world than actually realise and face up to the threat to mankind that so ominously looms across our future as a species.

You would rather see Shell bring in more billions so you can keep your misplaced sense of pride in your greed-driven ideology; eschewing the results and advice of the greatest institution mankind has ever produced in the process; all the while putting on a facade of healthy scepticism and the maintaining of 'tradition'. Rot in (nonexistent) hell.

At 11/20/09 11:37 AM, andhination wrote: I can't be bothered with reading 30 pages, so did we discuss the airport mission yet?
It was annoying, because it was obviously only there for sake of controversy, and was a shitty level anyway.

What are you talking about, it was totally crucial to the whole plot.

Without the American operative dying there, the Russians would have never invaded America.

At 11/18/09 08:25 AM, domdom2323 wrote: The only problem occurs when science cannot answer a mystery that religion has an answer to, which is why, for me at least, faith is the backup to science

Random speculation is a backup to an actual evidence-based answer?

And if you treat your religion with that regard, simply as a backup to what science has to say, what happens if science proves the Big Bang was not caused by God?

I really don't see the point of having faith in a religion when you even admit it is ultimately superfluous guesswork

At 11/17/09 11:08 AM, Ericho wrote: Thomas Jefferson removed all of the stuff from the Bible that mentioned Jesus' divinity. I just choose to remove the stuff about Hell and believe the rest, or at least the good stuff.

Is it your place (in the eyes of your religions' god) to do that?

At 11/16/09 12:46 PM, fishboy121 wrote:

At 11/16/09 12:44 PM, SpiderTaco wrote:

What do you think?

Well none of it matters because (spoiler warning) Him and Roach get shot and set on fire in a pit.

I'm betting they live to come back in the next MW so they can join up with Price and Soap to attempt to clear their names and vilify Shepard.

Anyone used a tactical nuke yet?

At 11/10/09 03:23 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 11/10/09 02:55 PM, Victory wrote: Have all the money taken off you by your two American owners who have managed to sink your club in millions of pounds of debt, and attempt to mount a title challenge with a severely reduced team..

Sounds like the Montreal Expos.

Sadly not who I was referring to

Have all the money taken off you by your two American owners who have managed to sink your club in millions of pounds of debt, and attempt to mount a title challenge with a severely reduced team..

At 11/9/09 05:53 PM, Ericho wrote: Well, I just think of it as being metaphors. After all, Jesus spoke in metaphors. You should try indoctrinating that theory to other people.

Metaphors for what? Burning in eternal torment could be a clever way of explaining.. what exactly?

And, if you take that argument that the bible is full of metaphors, how do you know god isn't just a metaphor used in the bible for something else? You believe in him and not hell.. but why is that?

Want the truth? You pick and choose exactly what aspects of your religion to believe in. When one bit is used as a common anti-Christian argument (such as the concept of hell's incompatibility with a benevolent creator), or is defeated by scientific fact, you disregard it and write it off as 'metaphor', despite having no real basis for such a change, in regards to all the other changes you didn't make for less controversial passages of the bible/aspects of Christianity, because hey, no one cares about that right?

At 11/9/09 01:54 PM, KittyKrew-Moderator wrote: the Koran,
I'm no enemy of any religion that provides order.

lol.

Nah, he's gone right off since Extras finished.

At 11/9/09 11:28 AM, amaterasu wrote: The bottom line is, by stereotyping all religious as closed minded and uncaring individuals, you are making yourself no better than the zealots who believe stereotypes about all nonbelievers.

Nah. Nonbelievers are not necessarily collectively united by anything, as opposed to people of collective religions, who necessarily are.

How different is that from the racists, who have had a few bad experiences with [insert ethnicity] people in their lives and therefore accept all the stereotypes and prejudice, and make similar assertions? "All [insert ethnicity] are bad, screw 'em, my race is better.".

Totally disingenuous thing to say.

The religion of a person is not some inseparable, unconditional quality they are born with, as race is. There is always a choice for them to believe their bronze-age myths, or not, or believe other bronze-age myths. Furthermore the actions of a person have an intrinsic relationship with their beliefs, which often provide a motivational role, whereas race does not necessarily dictate anybody's actions; especially in such an exact, direct manner.

Utter stupidity.

What is actual utter stupidity is people like you failing to acknowledge that the actions of this camp are dictated by their belief in their religion. Instead, you constantly play the other side as the bad guy by playing the 'generalisations' card again and again, like that somehow absolves religion as the motivator for religious people's actions.

"To be governed by politicians is a necessary evil. To be governed by arrogant scientists would truly be hell on earth."

Yes, of course I'd rather place my faith in a group of taypayer-thieving, party-line-toers who represent mostly the corporate interests and party leaders they belong to instead of a group of factual, unbiased individuals who would decide policy in the most efficient manner possible.

'Mainly Bile'.

At 11/3/09 12:01 PM, Ericho wrote: Oh, that is supposed to be humble? That is simply ridiculous. If no one cares and nothing can save you, and you're just a spec of dust, then why not kill yourself? It may not show humility, but it makes sense. How can we be here for no reason? And if there's no reason, why not go and kill everybody? If everybody has no reason for being there, there's no point in letting them live, for crying out loud!

"If you don't look at the world from my perspective, you're obviously wrong and should kill yourself!"

Ludicrous. We've been through this point time and time again and you still don't get it.

You are the one, Ericho, saying that a purpose for living can only be valid if you believe it was given to you by the creator of the universe. You still don't seem to get that that isn't a hard fact that everybody 'obviously' knows; it is, in fact, something that you've imagined in your head and haven't given any sort of reasoning towards explaining why.

For someone constantly pandering to 'respecting everyone's views', it seems pretty hypocritical of you to then turn around and start pointing fingers at everyone who does not agree with exactly what you believe in.

At 11/2/09 02:17 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: if it were anyone else, i'd be shittin' my pants, but i think i can trust my own government.

You can never, ever trust the government. The whole concept, in every single country in the world, has absolutely nothing to do with the people it supposedly represents, and everything to do with furthering it's own power. Absolute fact.

At 11/1/09 04:19 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/1/09 04:15 PM, Drakim wrote: I regret to inform you that I am in favor of capitalism.

then why make a thread that just says "capitalism sucks"?

Jesus Christ.

At 10/31/09 01:27 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/31/09 01:18 PM, Ericho wrote: I would say that we should first legalize marijuana and once that is done, all hard drugs will be legalized eventually as it's obvious prohibition didn't work. While the things may be bad in themselves, people are just going to get more of it in more of it in even worse versions.

If we were going to legalise murder, would also less people be doing that?

Strawman argument. Ericho never raised that as a point for legalisation in his post, and nothing indicated that he even took that stance.

As for my own answers:

At 10/31/09 09:17 AM, CloudEater wrote: What are your thoughts on these drugs?

They are clearly the most interesting, perhaps 'artistic' drugs, because of their effects on the user's way of thinking. I don't see a problem with them at all, if a person wants to take them and can accept any possible long term psychological alterations that might occur (obviously depending on the type of hallucinogen/strength/on how regular a basis they are used, etc.) then that is ultimately their decision.

Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?

Probably not, but I don't think that is the issue anyway.

The real issue here is not with whether or not they will hurt/addict the person taking the drug, but rather: should it be the government's job to decide whether people are capable of making their own choices or not?

Should these drugs be taken more seriously?

In terms of...?

Law enforcement? Psychological impact?

Do you really care if people consume these drugs?

No.

What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

wat

Labour out now.

At 10/30/09 10:36 AM, morefngdbs wrote: No they do not.
They are no better than any other group of deluded individuals.
Why is it that you get a group who seem to believe , because they're in a group their delusions should somehow carry more importance.
These people are nothing more than conmen & women who are stealing naive, vulnerable people's money.

no

At 10/30/09 06:14 PM, zer0gravity1 wrote: Seriously, can someone help me out?

rock band

At 10/30/09 07:05 AM, GuntherHermann wrote: the only conceivable difference is smeg. smeg is a good thing because it separates those who shower once a month from those who never shower at all.

Once a month?

At 10/29/09 08:38 PM, TheStonePilot wrote:

At 10/29/09 06:13 PM, Victory wrote: come on guys these people have a right to their beliefs and a right for those beliefs not to be questioned or criticised by anyone

They do when their beliefs are potentially harmful. For example the hatred against psychiatrists and the ban on drugs.

stop being so arrogant and offensive

you are OFFENDING ME

At 10/29/09 08:18 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: This country is SO fucked....

The only way your country would be fucked is if it were populated by more people as illiterate as you.

Read the damn thread through before posting your unthinking knee-jerk reaction..

come on guys these people have a right to their beliefs and a right for those beliefs not to be questioned or criticised by anyone

At 10/28/09 11:29 PM, The777Demon wrote: definitely a violation of the bill of rights what else is new in this fucked up country.

If you had actually read through the thread properly, you'll see that this 'bill of rights' shit has been refuted at least, what, fifteen times by now?

Get a clue moron.

At 10/28/09 07:40 PM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote: From what I recall in reading The Inferno, God made the people who live in Heaven incapable of feeling compassion or sorrow for the damned in Hell. That way, they could easily enjoy their eternity in heaven.

Hm, doesn't sound much like free will to me..

Why not just get a lobotomy?

At 10/28/09 07:47 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/28/09 07:35 PM, Victory wrote: Gott mit uns.

I certainly do!

Oh lol.

If a private company wants to convey a certain image to the public, doing so through their representatives (employees) is but one method and subsequently they have the right to dictate exactly how the employee will behave/appear to potential customers.

I don't see what there is to dispute here. The man knew what he was doing when he signed a contract which waived certain rights of his to the company. This has nothing to do with the company 'taking offence', who should of 'respected his beliefs', as certain posters have mentioned so far..

At 10/28/09 07:20 PM, MrPercie wrote: What about hitler? What he was doing he thought was right.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic.

Gott mit uns.

But im not going to go into some deep mental religious thing all im gunna say is Im gunna live a good life because I am good person but Im gunna go to heaven so I can lived with my loved ones in paradise. I dont see anything wrong with this, it just doesnt suck.

Well here's a tricky question for you. Say one of your loved ones did not believe in god and ended up going to hell; could you be eternally happy in heaven knowing they were suffering endlessly at the same time?