At 11/14/06 09:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: You are thinking too big.

In religion, an axium might be that "when I die, something of me continues on" or even simpler the idea of good and evil is an axiom. In some ways one could argue that good and evil don't actually exist and they are terms invented by humans to help make the world a sensible place, but at the same time its hard to prove they don't exist, but if I did it would ruin some people's lives who have built their entire life on these ideas.

Good and evil itself is not as simple as you can take it. Humanity seems to be drawn to the axium of opposition: Think of the number of opposing ideas you see everyday, be they order and chaos, good and evil, conservative and liberal, truth and falsehood, etc. None of the above are truely ends of a linear spectrum, yet common conception says they are. I think this is one of the most fundamental elements of human perception.

At 11/14/06 07:48 AM, Leonardo-Da-Finchy wrote:

At 11/14/06 04:50 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

That was the last time I'll ever pack my X-Box before the last possible minute . . .

I've only just managed to get my hands back on my Gamecube. I share with my brother, but it's a bit hard when I'm at uni and he isn't. So I've nabbed it 'till christmas. I think you know the significance of next month to those that follow the big N...

Yea, I've had a preorder of "Working title Zelda" waiting in limbo for some time now . . .

At 11/13/06 04:48 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 11/13/06 04:40 PM, internet-lord wrote: Theres are questions not statments!!!

another question; doesn't anybody know what the fuck a search bar is for?

We've got a search bar!?!

It's not like this hasn't been done to death:

You're going to hell
It's her choice
Partial birth OMG!!!!
random off topic comment
I eat babies
It's a safe operation
MURDER!
Stem cells

and repeat ad nausea.

At 11/14/06 06:50 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: Also, you americans should shut up about the " It's a good thing us freedom loving yankees freed those jews from those concentration camps." " Those things we saw there are unimaginable for us to do."

Think again

You complain about nazi jokes saying " hitler killed hundreds of children you should be ashamed of what you're saying"

Americans had concentration camps too. Now shut up.

Don't be so quick to generalize, nor to Godwin . . .
Most Americans who know about these sort of things are ashamed that they happened, though many still don't realize that our so called "internment camps" (as if a nicer name changed anything . . .) even existed. These are the things that tend to be kept quiet, but at least the Supreme Court is tightening Bush's leash to try to keep them from repeating.

And though I can't speak for all of us, I am quite honestly appauled that my nation did such things.

At 11/14/06 06:37 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: They should give those billions of dollars they're hoarding to countries that need it.
( Philippines)

nah, we aren't hoarding billions . . . we can't even hoard social security and we're trillions in debt.
But on the other hand, if we are . . . I want my cut sometime soon.
And America gives out more aid than any other country, last I knew--too lazy right now to hunt down real statistics though.

At 11/14/06 06:20 AM, emmytee wrote: Please don't get offended Americans, its just that the majority of you voted for bush..

Actually the majority of us voted for Gore . . . stupid electoral college

At 11/14/06 04:40 AM, fli wrote: Damn...
Worked out especially hard to sleep. I was so tired... even had a melatonin pill to make sure I'll get to sleep.

I hit the bed and damn it, wouldn' you know it?
I'm awake as if I had Jolt Cola injected in my veins...

No homework. No work. No nothing...
I've started to read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown--

Yea, it seems every third person who goes to Purdue owns a copy of that book . . . it's kind of creepy actually . . .

I read it and found it to be a viable use of time, not horribly exciting, but sufficient when all the rest of my books and my gaming consoles were already packed to move.
I was okay with the hidden Science haven, and the anti-matter-in-a-jar-time-bomb-waiting-to-hap pen, but when the masons and pope started coming into play suspension of disbelief did a belly flop.
Still the ambigrams were kinda cool.

That was the last time I'll ever pack my X-Box before the last possible minute . . .

I've seen two very different sides of the spectrum of our public schools, and I think I can safely say that there are some major issues in our schools. I went to elementry school in Indianapolis where I was in the 3% of non-black students. The education there was outright deplorable. Why?
1 The neighborhoods: Most of the students came from families that had no educational background; their parents didn't need no education and they aint need none either. They were exposed to gangs and crime and saw the street as an alternative to an education.
2 The teachers: The only teachers who would work for the miserable pay an inner city school provides are the desparate ones. They didn't care whether the student actually learned anything, they didn't bother to assign homework because that only a third of the class would do, and after a year failing to teach a student anything, they passed him up to the next grade so that they wouldn't have to deal with him.
3 The schools: The schools have little funding so they only get the desperate or detiremined, and far more of the former. With this staffing the school rarely does anything effective to increase the students' desire to learn and the problems merely self-perpetuate.

All modesty aside, my test scores have always been in the top 5% or better, but the only advanced learning I got was being put in the fourth grade class during math when I was in third grade and the fifth when I was in fourth, and this onlhy because I had earned the school's first perfect ISTEP score . . . of course, I had found this inconceivable at the time, as I had always thought those tests were incredibly easy, and now I know why: The tests are about a grade level and a half behind the curriculim.

After moving to a college town near the end of my fifth grade year, I was surprised at the differences. Here, students planned on graduating, and those who were obviously ahead of their peers got some special attention, as did those who were behind. Some other things shocked me: Everyone in my new class knew how to read, and could long divide with reluctance, and I was expected to turn in homework and study for tests! I honestly believe that my successes thus far are much more a result of genetics rather than education.

But the real issue is how to fix the problems. One easy answer is to quit cutting funding: Cutting educational funding because your schools fail to teach students is as effective as turning over a bucket because there's a small hole in the bottom. This is especially important when it comes to teacher's salaries. I could make as much at my job (retail stocker) if I worked full time as teachers do, but I'd only work fourty hours a week, without needing any degree.
I simply refuse to believe that our need for teachers is exceeded by our need to have a full shelf of salad dressing every day, but that's what the system seems to indicate.

At 11/14/06 02:57 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: Um, George Bush, being born to a wealthy oil-tycoon family went to war in Iraq for his personal benefit. as it would increase the price of his oil (which it did).

Oh, why thank you for explaining that so eloquently, how could there be any doubt?
But seriously, without any explanation of now this was to his personal benefit, nor any evidence that increasing the price of oil was his goal, I cannot view this as anything but either ignorant ranting or trolling.
Also, I'd like to point out that adding "(which it did)" to the end doesn't count as proof . . . it only enhances the image of someone trying to force his opinion without bothering with facts.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the only Americans who went to war in Iraq were from the Bush family

Really? I had heard that there were thousands of American deaths, and all from the Bush family! My heart goes out to the poor dieing Bush clan.

and that the main topic concerning these wars was oil? (George Bush Senior in "The Gulf War," and Bush Junior with "War on Terrorism..." Terrorism my ass!

And what evidence do you have to support this belief that the main reason was oil. Saying a thing does not prove it.
On a side note, thank you for correctly placing your ellipsis, few here actually do, though they are incorrectly written, and you forgot your closing parenthisis.

I do however agree with some portion of you post; the War on Terror has utterly failed to combat terrorism, and the war in Iraq still flounders due to terrorist activity, which is my primary concern with the war as it stands. I respect that Saddam needed to be removed from power, but invading was not an effective way to do so.

And an exit strategy would've been nice a few years ago . . . heck, it'd be nice now . . .

At 11/10/06 09:16 PM, Exblade wrote: actually light is not matter its an energy, it was created off by matter but its not matter its just energy like fire, lightining, and light

Fire isn't energy, it's an illusion; what you see as a lick of flame is the emission of photons caused by heat generated through the reaction between the fuel and oxygen gas. The shape of the flame is merely a sheath of gas.
Lighting is not energy either--it's a stream of matter, in this case electrons. Any spark, be it caused by lightning, or merely static cling, is the transfer of electrons from a electricly negitive (electron dense) area to a positive (electron deprived) area due to a the electrons repelling each other, just like two like poles of magnets. The spark, or lightning bolt, that you see is energy that is emitted during the transit.

Whether light is matter is another story entirely. It is most certainly a form of energy, as it can be converted from or to heat, as is evidenced by the appearence of fire. However it also has inertia, one of the defining attributes of matter.

At 9/1/06 01:10 PM, 2-Disme wrote: In my strong belifes of no religion i trust my life in the loving hands of SATAN

VOTE SATAN

How can you believe in satan without first being a Christian, and thus have a religious belief?

I don't think it's racist at all. Maybe there's some hidden racial message based on which levels are black and what they have, but I doubt it. It's probably a unintentional throwback from political correctness, but until I see some explanation how it is intendedd to offend or oppress or attack, I just don't care really.

oh, and the people who get banned are the ones who find some way to get around the filter: splitting the word N## ### or using l337: N####|2 or such. These sort of things are extremely hard for a computer to automatically find, but I doubt the mods will miss that sort of thing, so don't think about pressing your luck.

At 8/15/06 06:48 PM, the_cheat8 wrote: In my opinion, only evolution should be. Schools are a place where you're supposed to learn facts, mathematics, history etc. You shouldn't be teaching fanciful ideas from 5000 years ago in a place of knowlege!

Damn, I liked that Greek mythology class . . .
But, you know, it was only [i]really[i] good for making any sense out of the thousands of allusions to it in literature, or for understanding the history of the region, or the roots of the ways of thinking that founded this country . . .
It's important to learn about these fanciful ideas, so that we can take from them the wisdom and learn not to repeat the foolish bits.

At 8/15/06 06:47 PM, A_Carrot_By_Dr_Riot wrote:

At 8/15/06 06:12 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: On a side note, I'd be fine with ID in a philosophy class as well, so long as all Christian beliefs are removed (which they should already be if it's ID theory).

Christianity is perfectly acceptable in a philosophy class. To only allow atheist philosophies would be unethical.

ah, I worded that badly . . . I was referring to groups that are trying to put ID into schools to convert people to Christianity. I have no problem with Christian beliefs in a philosophy setting so long as they are stated to be such.

Another EvsC thread . . .
The answer to your question is simple. But it depends on the class. Only sciences should be taugh in a science class, and only religions should be taught in a religious education class.
I wouldn't want creationism in my science class, nor would I want natural selection taught as a religion.
On a side note, I'd be fine with ID in a philosophy class as well, so long as all Christian beliefs are removed (which they should already be if it's ID theory).

Kay . . . let's try a different approach.

At 8/15/06 08:42 AM, code_name wrote: what is faith that makes it so much better than logic?

Because green is better than sour.
The two are similar, kind of the way green and sour are both sensory qualities, but the difference between faith and logic is such that one can't be explained in terms of the other, anymore than you can describe the appearance of sour or the taste of green.

At 8/15/06 01:18 PM, code_name wrote: then why do you choose to believe in faith?

So why do people follow faith? Because they happen to like the color of sour.

Code_name, do you believe in atomic theory?
If so, why?
Unless you have reached a high level in certain feilds you have almost definately seen no proof of it yourself. You probably believe it, then, most likely because you were told that everything is made of finite pieces of matter and you agree with the logic that led to these conclusions and you have seen other forms of evidence that make it more likely, such as the utility of chemistry based on the theory.

The metaphor isn't perfect, but to believe in this is, in the eyes of many of the religious, just as much a leap of faith. They believe as they do because they were told something that made sense and seems to fit with their observations of the world--something any scientist does everyday.

At 7/19/06 12:34 PM, kirby0wnz wrote: I reckon it will be not long... 2020 if all the pollution carries on innit.. global warming owns all.

Global warming won't cause the end of the world. It might possibly cause the end of humanity, but that's not the same thing.

At 7/5/06 05:19 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

You are in a hospital bed, deathly sick. Suddenly, it seems as if someone is in the room with you, comforting you. You can't see them, but you feel like you're not alone. And you can almost hear someone whispering in your ear that you need to get better. Despite the fact that the doctors tell you it's hopeless...this weird feeling makes you cling to hope, and you get better.

Now, whether or not the "visitor" was real or not is irrelevant, wouldn't you say? It had a positive effect, and produced a good result.

In that it makes people happy, yes, faith is a wonderful thing. But your example also brings to mind faith healers . . . and that application of faith is far from good. So long as it isn't your primary response to crisis, but merely a sorce of stability and hope, faith, be it in God, or anything else, is a grand thing.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to stop agreeing with you now.

Christians are a hell of a lot happier than athiests,

I've heard this said, and it is one of those statements that screams "Bullshit."
It's one of those completely ungrounded subjective bits of recruiting propaganda that get used to convert people.
Thing is, I really don't think most of the people who tell me this are any happier than I am. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I'm unhappy. If anything, it just means I'm happy for different reasons.

At 7/2/06 12:31 PM, Elfer wrote: The problem with this debate is that people decided to use loaded terms in order to demonize the other side by trying to separate their labels from the issue and latch them onto a higher cause.

I've always thought the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were just stupid.
Everyone is pro-chioce, as anyone who wasn't would've had to choose otherwise, thus making them in favor of choice anyway.
And "pro-life" is almost as bad. Clearly, anyone who has the slimmest moral compuntion is pro-life. The term is just redundant.

Personally, I'm vastly in favor of both life and choice, but I am against the majority of abortions on the grounds that the issue would have been better solved with a condom.

At 7/4/06 01:25 AM, ThebanLegion wrote: Sure there is, a moral code for example. Without morality we'd be just a bunch of impulsive animals doing whatever feels good.

Why is it that some people assume a mutually inclusive link between morality and religion? [I don't know if you personally hold that belief, I'm merely pointing it out now that you've brought it up]
I have seen quite a few religious people who are clearly lacking in moral value, and quite a few nonreligious people with great morality. I see absolutely no reason to think that we need a God or some higher power to tell us what is wrong and right. These rules were invented by humans and are carried on by humans, so why must we attribute them to a higher source?

It all comes back to: Politically Correct is an oxymoron.

The idea behind it is flawless, but it's just impossible to force equal status . . . so we do the best we can. The people who set this up probably meant for the best, dispite the fact that it's obviously unfair to an impartial obsever . . .

Life just sucks that way.

Forgive me if this has been brought up (I skimmed the topic, but gave up finding it amid the bickering and the occasional intelligent discussion) but I'm curious what the Christians here think about recent events that affect the scriptures, such as the Pope's removal of Limbo (for Catholics only, obviously) and the gospel of Judas being found.

The KKK may as well be dead, the current incarnation is less powerful than a large number of special interest groups, and they can no longer expect athorities to look the other way when they do something.
They're a dog with no teeth left that still snarls occasionally.

I would've gone for Kerry on the thought that he was about 99% likely to screw up everything, whereas Bush had already proved a near garauntee to do the same . . .
Not that my vote mattered . . . I live in Indana, so Bush had the state in the bag anyway, so I wrote in Arnold Swartenager just to give the poll counters a laugh.

I've decided to see if I can boil down standard internet political views into a simple quiz, thus:

1. Killing is wrong; therefore, abortion is wrong.
2. Killing is wrong; therefore, wars are wrong.

Results, and the subsequent response from the internet:

Yes to both:
You're probably a Centralist.
Internet: "You're a spineless flip-floper whose too pathetic to pick a side. There's no such thing as a centralist, theres only Conservatives and Liberals, idiot!"

Yes, then No:
You're probably a Conservative.
Internet: "F@#%ing Bush-loving neocon! You're a bible-thumping gun-toting redneck, and it's a miracle you even figured out the internet, you idiot!"

No, then Yes:
You're probably a Liberal.
Internet: "You queer, atheist, meat hating baby killer! It's people like you that are slowly leeching all of the moral values from the world. Have fun burning in Hell, you idiot!"

No to both:
You're probably some kind of psychopath . . .
Internet: Surprisingly, very little backlash, as you fit right in . . .

I think we should encourage the vaccine. The people who say that the vaccine will cause more children to have sex clearly haven't seen any info on abstinance programs: The feds push an abstanince only sex education plan that doesn't make any mention of safe sex, based on the theory that no sex is the safest path as far as STD's are concerned. While this is undoubtably true, these programs don't have nearly the desired effect--people have sex anyway, but because they haven't been taught about STDs they often don't bother with a condom, or expect it to block everything.
Meanwhile several conservative groups want to make it even harder for kids to find out about sex, and the things that go along with it, thus doing far more harm then good. I don't think this vaccine will affect the amount of teenage sex, I just think it'll reduce the spread of some STD's and reduce the occuracne of cervical cancer. and those are some things that I'm for getting rid of.

At 6/7/06 08:00 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/7/06 07:57 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: But there's no reason that the two can't be seperated--we can keep, for example, the idea that killing is wrong without believing that God said it was.

Why would it be wrong then?

Because it simply is. Every human has a right to life, whether you view that right in terms of law, divine edict, or whatever, killing is universally considered wrong.

At 6/7/06 07:56 PM, coolman1250 wrote: I believe in the bible, if u guys dont believe in da bible, change your aruas to evil

1. it's spelled aura
2. the auras are light and dark, and neutral.
3. u and da aren't words.
4. lack of belief in the bible does not make one evil. If it did, Jesus himself would have had to be evil, as there was no Christian bible at the time.
5. on a side note, being against Christianity might more likely suit the light aura than the dark one, as Lucifer translates to "bringer of light." Thus, I assume, as one who clearly thinks so highly of the aura system as an indication of character, your light aura indicates that you are a Satanist.

At 6/7/06 07:46 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 6/7/06 03:07 PM, Kaptain_Kabul wrote:

My parents told me what its right or wrong.. .. and the law is teling me too.
So who needs an old book whos telling me.

You realize most of our laws and morals are based off the Bible and old Judeo-Christian teachings.

Yes, and our governmental style is loosely based off an idea from Athens.
Morals are often linked to religions due to people labeling base morals as being sacred. But there's no reason that the two can't be seperated--we can keep, for example, the idea that killing is wrong without believing that God said it was.