At 7/24/08 06:54 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 7/24/08 04:35 AM, Toast wrote: EVOLUTION DOES NOT DESCRIBE HOW EVERYTHING BEGAN, IT MERELY PREDICTS AND DESCRIBES HOW LIFE EVOLVES

Evolution predicts how life evolves, but not how everything began? How the fuck is that any clearer... because you found the caps lock key this time

Wait what? Magnetism explains how magnets works, but now how everything began? Magnetism is clearly all false and full of confusion.

Is it really that hard to understand? Evolution explains how species evolve. Not how planets are made or how the universe began.

That's like, an argument against evolution right there.

Nope it isn't. Except maybe the use of caps.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK BY CHANCE.

No? So it's designed to work a certain way? Real clear there, buddy boy.

I don't even understand what you are talking about. Something has to be designed to not by random? What about pretty ice crystals out of water? What about nice round planets formed by gravity?

Heck, if you take a paper, fold it some times, cut some random holes in it, and unfold it, you get an awesome pattern despite your cuts being random.

NATURAL SELECTION IS THE SELECTION OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS TO INCREASE SURVIVAL IN A SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT.

So on a global scale, you're trying to say evolution doesn't exist, because every single specific element must be factored in?

What that fuck? I'm not even going to try to reply to this.

Got it?

No, you just clouded it even further.

I'm afraid you are way beyond our powers of helping, my friend.

At 7/23/08 05:41 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: A roach may become immaune to pestacide but it will never be immune to a sludgehammer.

Just look at us humans. Although we are all human, we all vary. Some are tall, some are short, some are born stronger, some born faster, some smarter. And these attributives are inheritable. That means, if you have very tall parents, then you will most likely be tall too.

This isn't some special power for humans only. All life has it. Small changes from the norm, inherited from the parents. If one roach is born with a slightly more durable body, then it might just survive a situation where a normal average roach might have been crushed. This roach lives to get offspring where a normal roach would have died. Over a long long time where this is repeated, you will have roaches with a lot harder body.

I mean, to deny this is to deny that we get traits from our parents. Am I tall just due to luck, and not because everybody in my family on both sides are tall?

I'm not saying I could do any better, but shouldn't the president of America be able to rise above such things? I mean, I got the impression that "Gook" is used for Vietnamese in general, not just the people fighting.

At 7/14/08 06:31 PM, Creek wrote: I think that ultra-religious people are, sometimes, crazy. At least the ones I met / knew. But is it wrong to belief in God the way I do, the not ultra-religious way?

Well, you do no harm, so I wouldn't call it "wrong".

I put it in the same category that I put people who believe horse shoes brings luck or people who believe planet alignment decides your fate. Harmless useless belief that I can't be bother with.

At 7/14/08 05:27 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Intelligent design is alot better of an idea than believing the universe came from nothing, the creation cannot be redone and studied so that blows the science out of evolution's ass.

To an evolutionist, there is about as much evidence we came from a rock than christians have that Jesus liked eating bread and wine, it just a simple matter of admitting whether you like the idea of being judged by your creator after you die, that is about it.
Doesn't matter how unfair people think it is, he was the one who made sense of everything.

Thats another thing, if you take randomness and try to fit it perfectly together, you wont be able to, so there was somthing intelligent that made everything in an orderly fashion, nothing can only make nothing.
Or take this example, if you take a bunch of building blocks that don't fit together, will you ever make anything stable out of them? No, you would have to have the intelligence to get blocks that would fit together, just as our DNA fits together and anything out of place would cause our and any other animal's destruction.

But that is where evolution kicks in. It's true that a bunch of building blocks that don't fit together won't build anything. But if you have a lot of time on your hands, like, some million years, you can try to build something over and over until you have worn out parts the building blocks so that they are different and fit.

At 7/14/08 09:37 AM, Mitsaras wrote: the whole society is based on Religion.......!!!!

How so? What part of society wouldn't work without religion?

At 7/12/08 09:45 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Drakim buddy, where have you been?

Vacation. Not really done though, going to Spain in a couple of days, so, I'll be gone some more. ^^

At 7/12/08 04:02 PM, stafffighter wrote: I hear that all the U.N does is play beer pong until sunset. And now to pad my post for an acceptable amount of quoted content.......done.

Yes, and the U.N is controlled how? Dictatorship?

At 7/11/08 08:00 PM, DPlato wrote: i think science is more logical

Wait wait, zetta slow down there dude. You are claiming WHAT?

I mean, imagine finding a machine. You wonder who could have built this machine. You see nobody. So, you assume, of all things, that an even more advanced machine built it. I mean, why? Why say that? That only creates more problem than it solves.

At some point of time, you are just going to have to accept that the biggest machine wasn't built by another greater machine. And then, why not just apply the same conclusion to the first machine, before you made such a mess?

At 7/12/08 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: Since when did the left-wing countries who complain about the US and how it deals with illegal immigration, suddenly become anti-immigration altogether?

Sigh, since you started lumping everybody together? There are more positions in the world than "Left" and "Right".

Too submissive?

Does she want to be "submissive"?
Is she abused?
Does she want to wear that article of clothing?
Is she an extremist?

They had a friggin' pathetic excuse for denying her citizenship.

And? What world order law says that you have to have an excuse for denying citizenship? You can deny citizenship because somebody has red hair if you want. The hole point of a democracy is that the people can decide how the country is run, including who you will let into the country. I'm not saying that makes you above criticism, indeed not, I would definitely hope such a decision is criticized, but there is no world police that overrules democracy, I'm afraid.

At 7/12/08 08:20 AM, AapoJoki wrote: If we forced only children of Muslim parents to wear such stickers, THEN it would be discrimination. But how could it be discrimination when the law is the same for everyone? It would just be a stupid law, nothing more.

Well, I could see how it would be bad if Finland made everybody shout "ALLAH IS EVIL" every hour, even if everybody had to do it (not just Muslims). But it's simply a case of common sense for the issue at hand. Despite what Muslims think, there is nothing wrong with pigs, and having it as a national animal is perfectly fine.

I don't know Elfer, the whole "the government should protect us from others, not ourselves" falls short on that drugs alters your mind for at least the duration of being affected by the drug. As in, you aren't sound of mind when taking drugs. Although other things do this too, such as alcohol, it's dosage is different. You can drink enough alcohol that driving is dangerous, but drinking to the point where you start seeing thing, you'll likely get alcohol poisoning and/or too busy vomiting your brains out. Drugs are different. You can get high by a small smoke that can be taken anytime, just like regular smoking. One small shot, one cute pill.

Personally, I would be uneasy to live in a society where guns are freely available, people free to drug their minds, and having a open and easy time doing it. I'm not saying that a ban would solve anything, but I'm definitly not for letting people "do as they please" in that sense, just as we don't allow you to drink and drive, simply because there is a huge risk at hand.

At 7/12/08 07:52 AM, stafffighter wrote: The world is full of crazy people and all the stirring in the world isn't going to get them out of the mix.

A thought I had after my giant sized morning coffee. Praying 5 times a day could be good for the economy.
It all works on the same princible as vacations. People don't produce much during vactions but they come back refreshed, not just physically, but mentally. They rejoin the workforce with less baggage and fatigue on their minds that would slow their work. If praying 5 times a day makes people think that they're in good with the man upstairs, or "spiritually refreshed" then that could have a very positive effect on their productivity.

As much as that might be true, Islam, and other realigions, but mainly Islam, has a bunch of rules that makes them very unprodutive and not fitting into a working society. For example, Muslim cab drivers refusing to drive dogs, even special trained dogs for blind people, is becoming an increasing problem.

But more, what happens when a Muslim refuses to do some menus in McDonalds because he thinks bacorn (pig) is unclean? As pointed out, when completely veiled women needs to show their face to confirm identity?

Although a lot of religious have a "when in rome do as romans do" kinda attitute, most of Islam agrees that one should only obey the laws of a country if it does not crash with Islamic theology. That means, if the law says one thing, but the Quran another, then you pick the Quran. This is very unfortunate when you considure that Quran orders the death of anybody who deconverters or converts away from Islam, for example.

I'm not saying that one should ban Islam for being unprodutive, (the same logic would apply for handicapped people), but I think such problems should be taken into account when they figure out if a person would fit into society.

At 7/12/08 06:40 AM, Alphabit wrote: Natural selection is random. Those who don't reproduce die out it's as simple as that; evolution can go both ways, it's not always going to get better with time. Natural selection serves to cull the downward trend of evolution (the weak die out), thus contributing to an upward trend in general.

I believe that human evolution has been slowed significantly because of our social lifestyle - the weak are protected under the law. It can even be argued that we are undergoing 'devolution' as people in poorer countries (having less education) reproduce more than those in wealthier (more educated) nations. But then again, people in western countries don't normally reproduce with those in African countries. So I guess Humanity could split into two as evolution goes.

I just want to point out that there is no such thing as devolution. Devolution means something completely diffrent unrelated to evolution.

This is because evoltion isn't something you can change back. It's kinda like the word "move". You cannot move forward and then "unmove" back. You simply have to move back again, so you move both times.

Evolution is the same. You can't devolve to something worse. Even if the results is worse under some conditions, it's still called evolution, both ways.

Haha, I am now convinced that Shaggy is an alt who are just playing you for laughs. Seriously, it's not possible to be that ignorant and refusing to understand even the most simply concepts of, well, anything.

At 7/9/08 12:13 PM, Memorize wrote: Typical Scientific Responses to specific situations:

A Castle/Palace-like building on a planet discovered (hell, make it a system of caves discovered)...

Typical Scientific Response: "Who built this?"

The Univerise...

Typical Scientific Response: "We have no proof of a 'God/Deity/Force/Who, so therefore we cannot say 'it' exists."

lol

In order to make a case for ID, you'd need some sort of qualification for the word "built" or "designed". Things can be very advanced and complex without being designed, just look at ice crystals, or magnets with metal powder. You can get the most amazing patterns without any designer behind it. It's impossible to tell aside random design and purposeful design.

If we look at the problem form another angle. If you walk into a room and find 10 dice lying on the ground, all with their six side upwards. There are two scenarios. The dice was either placed that way, with all the sixes upwards, or simply placed there, and they happened to get sixes by random chance.

Although we would logically think that it's more likely the dice patter is designed because it's so unlikely that 10 dice all got six, there are several problems. But the biggest issue that even if we can calculate how unlikely it is to get 10 sixes, we cannot calculate how likely it is for there to be somebody who as placed those dices in a patter. Thus, even if we have one likelyhood, we don't have the other likelyhood to compare to.

It's exacltly like this for the design of life. Life coming into existence by itself? Very unlikely. The likelyhood of God designing life? You have no idea. Thus it impossible to complare. You cannot say that one is more likely than the other, even if one of them is horribly unlikely.

So to speak, you cannot say that 800000 is higher than X just because 800000 is a high number. You have no freaking idea what X is. It could be 1 or it could be 100000000000000000 or whatnot.

At 7/9/08 01:33 PM, Memorize wrote: He better win.

But... he shouldn't have been so dumb to pronounce his 'new faith' for everyone to hear. You're in the military, I don't care about your faith, whatever the hell it might be.

It's not like he went around to tell everybody he was an atheist. They wanted him to pray, and he explained that he didn't want to pray because he was an atheist. It was a completely natural time to bring his atheism up.

And it's not like the military is very good at that "I don't care about your faith, whatever the hell it might be." thing you said anyway. They appear to assume everybody is a Christian unless stated otherwise, forcing people to say that they aren't Christian.

At 7/9/08 12:10 AM, Chavic wrote: I have been hearing an argument for gay rights that doesn't make sense to me. Here is the basic argument:

straight-guy: homosexuality is unnatural
gay-guy: homosexuality occurs frequently in the Animal Kingdom...

Ok, there is proof of some animals engaging in homosexual behaviors. But there is also proof of some animals engaging in necrophilia.

So its ok because animals do it?

Well then I'm off the the cemetery (picks up shovel and lube)

Easy to explain. You see, the gay guy isn't saying that "animals do it so we should do it" but, what he is saying is a response to the straight guy who said it was not natural. It's an argument that it's natural, not right or wanted or anything like that. Just that it not unatural.

I mean, it's no different from this:

dude1: Sugar is not natural.
dude2: Actually, it's very common in nature, for example in sweet fruit.
dude1: But so is poison, should we eat that too because it's natural then?

At 7/9/08 10:08 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: The real source and truth is farther from religion than the farthest star from the farthest galaxy.

And haha he became atheist because of something he read in the bible.

That's like becoming gay after you see a fat chick.

Indeed very possible my dear friend. The man saw a fat chick, and thought things though a second time, figuring out that he is really gay. Doesn't mean that the fat chick turned him gay, only that it gave him a nudge to check things again.

At 7/6/08 11:27 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Thought process is where we get anywhere, why do you assume I abandon mine for things like this? I merely have come to a conclusion, based on logic, that an atheistic position is just as foolish as a religious one.

Hm agreed, they should see that this is very possible.

Although logic is universal, knowledge in which to build that logic upon is not. If you start out with two diffrent platforms, then you might reach two diffrent conclutions about the same problem even if you use the same logic.

However, that does not mean that all platforms and conclutions are equal though.

At 7/6/08 11:33 AM, PrepareForWar wrote: I understand what your saying, but if you don't masterbate, they your concience should be guilt free. And the gorvernment can't stop anyone from masterbating, and I understand that. But in my church it is considered a mortal sin, which means I would go straight to hell if I did it and didn't confess it to the priest. Which is why I didn't say anything about it in the first place - because i don't do it.

Actually, your sperm dies even if you don't masterbate. They aren't produced to live long. Your body expects to get rid of it and produce more sperm, not save up the old. Thus, even if you don't masturbate, the results are the same.

p.s. Please don't bash my religion about the statement above.

Sorry there sonny, but when a religion tells you that you are going to hell for having a perfectly normal sexual life, then you can't expect that they will get away with it uncritizised. How would that be diffrent from a religion suppressing women and demanding that they don't be bashed for it?...oh wait...

At 7/5/08 03:32 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 7/5/08 03:03 PM, Drakim wrote:

That means, If I loose both my legs and arms, I don't have some human right to demand that you work to get me food.

If I am your child I do, and actually in the nation that we live in the government would be required to give you food.

No, it's if you are the child's legal guardians. If you are a sperm donor, you aren't in trouble if your child dies across the world.

If I due to some sickness become unable to produce blood, I don't have some human right that lets me demand you donate blood to me regulary. You might bring in the "babies can't sustain themselves either without the care of the mother either, does that mean that the mother can just leave the baby to die?", but that misses that the mother is required by law to sustain the baby in order to keep the baby, and nothing else.

That's not true. If you just leave your baby on the street and "don't keep it" you'd still be charged for negligence. If adoption isn't available (as is the case with the fetus), the parent has to care for it.

I adressed this point slightly down. Can't you read though the post to avoid this? Or edit when you see I adressed your point later in the post? If you do become the legal guardian of the child, it's indeed child neglet if you don't feed the child.

If she is unable to sustain the baby, or doesn't want to, she isn't punished, but the baby is taken away from her.

Not true. Parents can be charged with negligence.

yes, but that is because they didn't give up the baby in the "proper way", as for example adopting. If you are the legal guardian of a child, you have a "contract" that you will take care of it.

This is a very big diffrence. Although the mother is punished if she does take the responsibility of having a baby and then fails it (say, forgets to feed the baby thus killing it), then she is to be punished, but that is because she entered something akin to a contract. She may keep the baby as long as she sustains it.

By creating a person you are entering the contract to raise it as a child. If we accept that the fetus is a person, then the mother is obligated to protect it. Your claim that the contract begins with birth is completely arbitrary.

So, if a mother is raped and then captured and prevented from aborting until late in the pregnancy, is she still responsible for the child, even if she had absolutely zero control? I agree that if you enter this "contract" then you must indeed forfil it, but, nobody can argue that this contract goes into effect until at least a few weeks into the pregnancy, and that the mother isn't kept from having an abortion somehow.

My argument is that unless the mother agrees, the fetus has no power to demand the womans body. But keeping the fetus for X weeks, the mother agrees, (unless something keeps her from aborting).

Even if we give full human rights to a fetus, it is still just that, human rights, nothing extra past that. There is no human right that let's the fetus demand that a woman sustain it. If we play by such rules, then parents should be required by law to donate any organ, blood or otherwise something in order to save a sick child, even if that hurt the parent (don't try to argue that pregnacies aren't taxing on the mother).

They are taxing on the mother, but so is raising the child - period. Of course if the mother's life is at risk from supporting the child, then that's a whole different story.

There is no such thing as a pregnancy without risk. Even in the best place in the world, with the best doctors and best hospitals, it's very very risky. Although the risk of the mother outright dying is small, the risk for damage, even permament damage, is very large.

So, in short. Having the right of a full human being does not give the fetus the right to demand the mothers body. There is no such right. It's very possible for the mother to get pregnant without intending to, so you can't just lay the blame on her either.

Right, and a toddler has no right to demand the parents get food or water for it. Brilliant.

I adressed this in my post. What are you, a goldfish?

However, this doesn't neccessary mean that you should be able to have abortion until the day before the birth. One could very well have a system where keeping the baby for X weeks is sort of like a contract.

You enter into a contract by creating a child. Although to my knowledge a child isn't really created until the 2nd/3rd trimester.

Again, I label you a choicer, although a conservative one. As you said, the pro-life movement leaders doesn't want stricter abortions, they want abortions compeltely gone. Pro-lifers don't go around saying "late term abortions are murder". They mosty argue that ANY abortion is muder, and that life begins at contraption.

Interesting. I guess I'll throw in my most relevant argument. I'm interested in your responses.

If we are to give full human right, including the right to live, to a fetus, that still leaves a big gap in the logic. You see, there is no human right that says you have a right to live off others.

That means, If I loose both my legs and arms, I don't have some human right to demand that you work to get me food. If I due to some sickness become unable to produce blood, I don't have some human right that lets me demand you donate blood to me regulary. You might bring in the "babies can't sustain themselves either without the care of the mother either, does that mean that the mother can just leave the baby to die?", but that misses that the mother is required by law to sustain the baby in order to keep the baby, and nothing else. If she is unable to sustain the baby, or doesn't want to, she isn't punished, but the baby is taken away from her. This is a very big diffrence. Although the mother is punished if she does take the responsibility of having a baby and then fails it (say, forgets to feed the baby thus killing it), then she is to be punished, but that is because she entered something akin to a contract. She may keep the baby as long as she sustains it.

Even if we give full human rights to a fetus, it is still just that, human rights, nothing extra past that. There is no human right that let's the fetus demand that a woman sustain it. If we play by such rules, then parents should be required by law to donate any organ, blood or otherwise something in order to save a sick child, even if that hurt the parent (don't try to argue that pregnacies aren't taxing on the mother).

So, in short. Having the right of a full human being does not give the fetus the right to demand the mothers body. There is no such right. It's very possible for the mother to get pregnant without intending to, so you can't just lay the blame on her either.

However, this doesn't neccessary mean that you should be able to have abortion until the day before the birth. One could very well have a system where keeping the baby for X weeks is sort of like a contract.

At 6/25/08 10:11 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/23/08 09:25 PM, SolInvictus wrote: it is a belief

Using your logic it's a belief when you disbelieve in Agogwe, Zahhak, Cat Sidhe, Pricolici etc (they're mythical creatures)

Actually your logic is stating that if you disbelieve in anything that isn't scientifically proven then it's a belief.

He is right! I'm religions for assuming that my family loves me! D:

At 6/19/08 06:35 AM, ActionWire wrote: What is it to worship God or Satan? I can tell you its not what you think it is. Its much deeper than that.

Or a lot more shallow, depending on how sceptical you dare to be.

At 6/20/08 02:52 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: That's like saying ham has a long history of being killed for sandwiches.

Of course that shit is going to happen.

Doesn't mean that no one will eat pork instead.

Except mulims and jews?

At 6/16/08 10:34 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 6/14/08 05:45 AM, Drakim wrote:

I'm afraid that your logic falls short at the very first sentence. Did you for example know that 30%, that's about out of three, pregnancies are ended of natural causes? That means God is the biggest abortionist of them all! :D (and a murderer who breaks the law on a daily basis. D:)

I'm afraid that logic falls short too. If I killed someone, would it make sense for me to say in court "But hurricanes kill way more people than I do. God is the biggest murderer of all". How is it relevant if a good number of pregnancies are ended of natural causes?

Well, there is one big diffrence. Those 30% doesn't happen because women fall down stairs. It's natural, as a result of our design.

A hurricate is obviously not part of how humans "work", and the death isn't natural despite it's cause being natural forces.

My point was more that if you label all abortions murder, then you are in deep shit, because our bodies naturally murder 30% of all pregnancies. (the fetus is safe when it reaches a certain development stage, kinda like how we don't allow abortions after a period of time. Not quite sure if the limits match, but you get the idea.)

At 6/16/08 08:01 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 6/15/08 04:42 PM, Drakim wrote: However, I'm wondering, why this anti-governments attitude (not negativly meant) in America does not extent to big corporations?

It doesn't?

Thanks for the reply, I was fearing nobody would. ^^

Dude, there's all shades and grades of anti-corporation sentiment out there. You just don't notice it so much because most people have more immediate and pressing things to worry about in their lives. Not everyone has the time or resources to spare to be an activist.

But that is exactly what I took notice of. Americans as a whole does have a very against the government mindset, and they often act upon this (although not in the form of protests). I think for example, the amount of government conspiracies reflect this. It was ages since I saw a conspiracy involving a company like say, Google or Microsoft. It's always that nasty government who is running things behind the scenes.

Although it's true that oil companies are labeled this way, it's always in union with the goverment anyway.

So, why is it okay for big men behind the scenes to rule America as long as they aren't elected?

Rule America -- how? Be specific. Yes they're wildly influential... but so are lots of other people who AREN'T politicians OR businessmen. So what exactly is it that they rule over? And -- not elected? Oh, they are INDEED elected by someone. There's shareholders and Boards of Directors and whatnot. I mean, not every corporation has some egoic Donald Trump-type caricature at it's helm... and even when they DO, it's not like they never have to deal with making their OWN compromises. It may sound like it does, but being the head of a company doesn't automatically turn you into a king and give you the right to do absolutely whatever you want with it. A flashy title doesn't necessarily equate to having 100% stake in an organization.

I'm not necessary talking about the businessmen as they exist. I've never said that businessmen rules America. What I'm wondering is the mindset of Americans, who often think of shady high power men who are pulling the strings of the businessmen/politicians/presidents we see.

The whole idea of multi-national corporations and global conglomeration in the area of trade and commerce without an equally-strong parallel sort of movement in multi-national government leaves a bad taste in my mouth... but hey, I'm not the most business-savvy person out there. You know, there's people out there making a fortune off fiat currency systems... just trading one type of money for another, capitalizing on whatever the difference in value is between them, trading it for some other form of currency, so on and so-forth. They basically produce nothing yet still get rich; it's like creating money out of thin air. You're stumped over governments and corporations? What about the international money-changers and bankers? LOL... it's Illuminati Reptilian Jew conspiracy time!

Hah, but these things never becomes as huge as the common goverment conspiracy claims. The government is hiding aliens in area 51, the government did 9/11, ect. It's always the government we shouldn't trust, it's always the government that does those nasty things when yo leave it unchecked. It's rare to see somebody express distaste over some lex luthor like corporation.

....

StephanosGnomon, I hope you realize that this is a humorous topic. I'm not burning up inside because somebody has a different opinion than the two most popular sides, really. ^_^

At 6/15/08 11:30 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 6/15/08 03:09 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/15/08 02:33 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: You shouldn't be so hard on the middlemen. Can't you compromise? If you want your solution fully, and they want only half of it, why not make it 75%?

No, you should be hard against the middlemen!

You see, if I want to fight the enemy, but you want to run away form the enemy, then the middleman suggests that half our army fights and half our army runs away. Genius, is it not? :o

I considered actually putting the : sarcasm line at the end, but I thought you'd get it. Well, i was just taking the middle ground!

...and..I cannot use sarcasm back? Does it really sound that serious when I shout "you should be hard against the middlemen"?