At 9/11/09 03:16 PM, MoriChax wrote: I finally broke my fever this morning. What a big relief.
I hope yours goes away soon. If not already.

Everyone will be fine.

It's just a bitch of a flu to catch, and only lasts about a week. Your fever will be mean S.O.B. for about a day.

Drink plenty of fluids, call in sick, and take plenty of NyQuil. It's not as big a deal as the news makes it out to be.

At 9/10/09 03:17 AM, Sphyzex-9 wrote: I immediatly came and then I started farting. I felt so awkward about it I just looked at the floor and waited for it to end.

When you can do this same exact thing and tell her to make you a sandwich, you'll be a man.

At 9/8/09 05:46 PM, MoriChax wrote: Ah yes I attended the Penny Arcade Expo this weekend. Lots of cool swag and and lots of awesome demos. But I came back with something I didn't want to come back with... Swine Flu. I'm glad my case isn't terrible.. yet. But Thanks fucker that got everyone else sick. >:C
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/PAX-200 9-Swine-Flu-Case-Reported-19737.html

Meh, it was probably me. I go to Washington State University and the whole place is over-fucking-run with swine flu right now.

As for swag, I scored some, but there wasn't that much cool stuff going around.

I DID, however score a Maw doll. I fuckin' thought they were free, so I took one off the table. Some guy told me they were supposed to sell for like $12.00 though.

At 4/8/09 01:51 PM, TacoFreak wrote: If the bullying is happening inside the school then it's the schools fault. They should monitor what's going on and stop any bullying.

The school is responsible for handling the bullying on school grounds. Not for what the bullied kid does off school grounds. Schools can punish bullies, but more often than not you'll look like a little bitch who ran for help rather than stood up for himself. That's the reality, at the end of the day.

I expect schools to regulate and educate. Not baby-sit. Confidence and standing up for yourself can't be learned in the classroom.

Unfortunate that the kid couldn't handle life pressures. More could have been done, but he didn't reach out. Blaming a school for his own emotional problems isn't conducive to justice.

At 4/8/09 04:44 PM, So-Smart-s0-Dumb wrote: Any tips please?

Ah, that's easy. Since you're not looking for physique, this is pretty simple.

Stairs, stairs, stairs. I can't recommend stairs enough. They're everywhere, easy on your joints, and great for your workout.

Simple running will increase your endurance level. Running stairs will tie a rocket to that increase because you're working against gravity/your own weight.

As for getting better with push-ups and sit-ups, the only way to do that is to start out with a set max number to get done every day. I started out with 30 max per day. Then to 50. Now I'm at 100.

Slow and steady wins the race, man. Just keep yourself challenged at all costs, and you can't go wrong.

At 4/8/09 04:23 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I'll be honest, I'm not skinny but I'm not fat, either (what do you call an "in shape" semi-fat person who could walk miles without tiring?) I work out and eat fine, usually. What about NewGrounds users? How many of you care about your health, what you look like, or what you eat?

I'm in good shape. Not stellar shape, but in good shape. I make it a priority to run 5-7 miles every day. 100 push-ups and 100 sit-ups every day. In the big picture, that's really not much. But it's easy enough never to avoid it or get lazy and put it off.

It gives my energy level for the day a huge boost. Good clothes adds to the confidence level, though women tend to care more about shoes than I do, by a long-shot.

At 4/8/09 03:16 AM, alucardxmeow wrote: It's really confusing there like you take one step and boom your arm flies off. Run back, your other arm flies off.

Then have people in strange mask's cut your penis off.

Not unlike during the Pre-Civil War south.

At 4/8/09 02:53 AM, StarNightRnd2 wrote: I have converted to 4Chan and /b/. I have been secretly going on since 4 months ago. I am ashamed. I am sorry to have ever betrayed you. So it is with this I say, I owe you one Newgrounds.

For once, your wish is my command.

To think that you used the internet to visit another website. I've never felt so betrayed by someone I've never heard of before. I hope you die.

At 4/1/09 01:43 AM, someone-else wrote: I give it 70% chance of being an April Fool's joke, 30% chance that it's real.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

It just wouldn't be the same website if rumors weren't floating around about the site going down or some random bullshit like that.

I've seen so many ups and downs with this website, I can't even count how many times I've heard that "X" was going to be deleted. Or Tom was leaving, etc.

The only time I've ever been surprised was when LiveCorpse offed himself after running from the cops and it ended up being true.

I'll believe it when I see it. Hell, even DeviantArt can keep up their forums.

At 4/2/09 07:30 PM, East525 wrote: *sniffle*

I was JUST thinking about Fruitopia the other day. I used to drink that shit in Middle School like it was going out of style.

Ironic, now that I think about it. Fucking Minute Maid.

At 4/2/09 07:33 PM, rome-lherison wrote: As we get older we outgrow things.

I've been on the site for a lo---ng time. It's a downer seeing a lot of people disappear. The forums aren't half as interesting as they used to be; especially the Politics Forums. If you want to discuss religion and communism over, and over, and over again; by all means knock yourself out.

I remember when J3nnica and Fomat stopped showing up so much, along with a lot of others; around the time the mods really cracked down.

I still know I can come to the website to catch great flash content. That much hasn't changed. I guess that's why I still drop in now and then.

At 3/19/09 10:10 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: There's a 15 year old kid facing front. And he looks EXACTLY HOW I WAS WHEN I WAS 15. Same face, same dark hair, same bad sense of style, same knot in tie, the whole 9 yards.

I had to keep a poker face the entire bus ride, because I was freaking out.

That was scary.

You should have walked up and touched him to see if you really was you. You know, to see if you two would disappear in a painful, interdimensional explosion where your existence is ripped apart, atom by atom. Like this.

Or be jailed for touching underage children on the bus. Either way, you're in for an adventure.

It's gotten way past the point of finding common ground through history.

I have two roommates from Lebanon, and they're solid guys; except for their restless and unforgiving hatred of all things Israeli. The way we think of their prejudice as pointless with a zero-sum positive influence is exactly how they think of cooperation with them: stupid, pointless, and zero-sum.

Why exactly?

It's easy. One of them is from southern Lebanon, which is constantly being shelled to root out Hezbollah. And the other one is from Beirut, whose home was bombed in 2006 when Israel went to war against Lebanon.

Both of them know friends and family who have been killed by Israel. Therefor, they don't need to "understand" why Israel does what it does. They know Israel wants to expand, and they know Israel has killed friends and family. The equation for them is simple.

Is it right? Fuck no, not by my understanding of diplomacy. But their hate DOES make sense. It's a vicious circle of revenge.

Don't even get me started on our friend Naseem, who actually IS from Palestine.

The blame lies 100% with Israeli and Hamas leadership. This is a complete step in the wrong direction for both countries, and it's a complete disappointment.

These people will never survive unless they start depending on each other for survival. This conflict will only subside in one of two ways:

1) They work together for common prosperity
2) Fighting intensified, and finally one side sparks a domino effect of getting other countries involved.

This region is like a dual glitch/virus in the grand fabric of international politics: what happens there will strike an echo in the surrounding region. Human nature isn't meant to remain under these conditions, and neither side is budging from the land. The annihilation of either will ensure long-lasting consequences.

Devoted service to the agenda of only Israel or Palestine is death wish for the world to burn.

At 10/9/08 09:38 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 10/8/08 05:39 PM, Nylo wrote: If that were the case, one could expect a more secular society to be better off than a theological society; but that's not the case.

Are you kidding? Look anywhere in the world and you will find religion running rampant in areas of poverty, low education and non-existent human rights. The most secular nations in the world largely populate the top 10 nations in Human Development Index as well as the Democracy Index. Meanwhile, Muslim theocracies are among the least democratic countries in the world. And just look at the American HDI report. Is it surprising to see the most religious states at the bottom of the list? I'm ready to bet that if you travel into the darkest Africa or deep into the Amazonian rainforests, you'll find the least educated tribes of people in the world, who are also the most superstitiously religious.

I stand corrected, in that I used the word secular completely wrong. Separation from church and state is good. What I should have, and meant, to say was that there is no correlation between the level of atheism in a society with it's level of prosperity. In that context, one can't refer to the United States being secular and prosperous without also acknowledging that it's the most religious of the western nations. Our religious organizations are all over the world, often committing time and charity that private organizations simply can't match in performance. As for Muslim theocracies, you've got the right idea, but that's more of an argument against government; not religion itself. Government can turn just as sour when it enforces the abolishment of theology (i.e. soviet union). Paraphrasing Joe Biden, countries that don't have a wall between government and religion are the ones that suffer. Not the ones that have both, and separate them.

You're the one who started the semantics though. Within the context of this thread, it's quite clear what Diederick, and the rest of us, mean with the world "religion". Belief systems which are based on institutionalized doctrines, passed on culturally or through upbringing, without being supported by evidence, are religions. Belief systems that are based on research, experimentation, evidence and critical thinking are not religions.

That might be the definition most of you have chosen to lead your argument, but that's not mine. My definition of religion is one of the handful in the dictionary as well: one that isn't confined to institutionalism, and simply has to do with belief based on "faith or observation" (webster.com). If I simply conceded that yours was the only one, it would be a fallacious argument based on popular sentiment, and my would be confined to the limits that favor the views of that sentiment. I don't expect you to swallow my definition, but I do have legit grounds to argue an alternative viewpoint based on a legitimate alternative definition.

The moment a human being has taken a stand on the supernatural and the afterlife, they have placed themselves into a spectrum of religious thinking.

Guess, what? There are some people who just don't give a shit. Even with your extended definition of the word, there are still people who don't need religion, people who don't engage in religious thinking at all.

Everyone is a politician with their own personal version of the afterlife. When push comes to shove, everyone has a belief they live their life by. Religious thinking is not confined to the walls of a church, how many people believe, or how many times someone prays. If you've got a view on the afterlife or the supernatural that affects the way you live your life, you've established a personal religion that directs the way you live your life. That's the entire function of a religion.

A lot of people try to make this argument. It's a red haring that looks relevant, but actually derails the discussion off topic.

It's not a red herring. A creator is equally undisprovable as other supernatural beings.

We're not talking about whether or not a Creator exists. We're talking about whether or not a person believes a Creator exists, how they came to that conclusion, and how that affects their cognitive and life decisions.

But if you think that tooth fairies et al cannot be compared to a creator, then how about other gods? Zeus, or Odin, for instance? They explain the Universe the same way any God would. Do you need faith to disbelieve in them? Do you need faith to disbelieve in all of these gods, or are you content with the fact that there is no evidence of them?

I would say you're absolutely right. It takes just as much faith to believe as it does to disbelieve. This is where I clash with many of those who share my theological views. The truth of the matter is, we both know there are many different religions. How do we know which one is the "right" one? It's a mix of observation, faith that you've chosen the right view, and faith that you've ousted the wrong views. All viewpoints on the afterlife and religion share that mix, no matter how different they are.

Yes, it can. Atheists are among the first people to honestly admit that they don't know. There is no need to fill the void, it can just be left unknown, at least temporarily. To the extent that the voids are filled, it is largely based on evidence, or at least viable hypotheses that can be tested and repeated.

The problem is that the void isn't left as-is. When an explanation is claimed to be wrong, it's insinuated that there's a better answer out there. Who will offer that better answer? Theology, or empiricism? Who will you trust? Them, or us? Ideally, the void should be left as-is by atheism, at least temporarily. But in reality, that's not how it works. Leave it to human nature to take a pure form of thought like atheism, and turn it into a new-age way of religious thinking: faith in man, and the 5 senses.

At 10/10/08 11:02 PM, raverboy16420 wrote: This man said "I don't want my child to grow up under a president that is associated with terrorists."

Thank you and good night

Unfortunately, not everyone takes a course in logic, and are easily persuaded by fallacious arguments that have nothing to do with reality. Simply put, statements and arguments like this put real issues in coloring book format. Arguing over them, rather than discrediting them, is like bitching over what color should go where. In the end, the picture is still a caricature of the truth.

Sean Hannity is a lot like Jon Stewart. The only difference is that Jon Stewart knows his own show is comedy, and Sean Hannity actually thinks he's reporting the news.

At 10/7/08 05:52 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Whether a person is an atheist or a theist, that person will develop a personal belief system in one form or another.

Not religion.
Probably something far from religion.

That's an argument over semantics, not the core issue of religion's parallel with belief systems. A belief in the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, or the fabled Easter Bunny and his black market of chocolate don't impact one's belief and vantage point of the afterlife. Everyone has a view on the afterlife, whether it exists, and what happens when (if at all) one gets there.

The moment a human being has taken a stand on the supernatural and the afterlife, they have placed themselves into a spectrum of religious thinking. Theists and atheists like to argue about how different they are, yet both cling tightly to their beliefs based on how they view the world.

Ultimately though, the claim that a higher power doesn't exist also requires faith, because it can't be proven.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have faith because you don't believe in the tooth fairy.
You have faith because you don't believe in bigfoot.
You have have faith because you can't prove I'm not the smartest and strongest man in the world.

A lot of people try to make this argument. It's a red haring that looks relevant, but actually derails the discussion off topic. None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with where life comes from, or what happens when one dies. Atheism voids out the concept of a Grand Creator, but can't do so without filling that void with it's own ideas and concepts.

Faith on its on and religion are HUGEEELY different.

See, the thing with your religion, the faith part of it isn't just believing in god, its:

-Believing in YOUR particular god, as opposed to a generic deist god.
-Believing this god had a son named Jesus
-Believing in his immaculate conception
-Believing he is capable of miracles
-Believing he rose from the dead

and so on and so forth.

It seems we agree on everything but the first line. My faith goes hand in hand with what is listed. Faith is inherently tied to belief. Belief is inherently tied to religion. You can dissect them to understand their role better, of course, but they're all parts of one whole. By themselves, they're meaningless.

I understand how faith, doctrine, religion, and belief are parts of a whole; you're correct on that part. But it's not my personal observation that faith exists anywhere where it's not connected to a belief.

Except for the Nihilists. Fucking marmot owning Johnson cutters.

?????

At 10/7/08 05:12 PM, Diederick wrote:

At 10/7/08 04:35 PM, Nylo wrote: Everyone needs a religion.

I obviously don't, and many with me.

I interpret a religion to parallel with one form or another of a belief system. Not a set of values, but a true belief system. Who knows, maybe I missed something. I'll read on and see.

Are you saying religion doesn't obstruct people?

As a all-encompassing rule of thumb, religion doesn't obstruct people, or human progress. I think any reasonable person can make the argument that it "can" obstruct people. But that's an entirely different argument from saying that religion "does" obstruct people. If that were the case, one could expect a more secular society to be better off than a theological society; but that's not the case.

Absolutely not. Atheists do not need anything supernatural to experience life at it's best. In fact, I believe people who do not believe in supernatural powers experience a much greater world than people that do; because a God makes things simpler than they really are.

No one (at least not me) is saying you're tied down to institutionalized religion. I'm saying no matter how much a human being tries to separate themselves from faith and belief systems (which ultimately form the foundation of religion), they will always find themselves trading one form of religion for another.

Your claim that you believe people who do not believe in supernatural powers experience a much greater world is itself a personal belief; a mirror image almost exactly like those who do believe in supernatural powers make. Even though you're more of an empirical, logically oriented person, you ultimately will step outside that realm and use those observations to form beliefs. It's human nature.

I am an Atheist and I absolutely do not grant any value to the supernatural. And it is the religious who need to defend their beliefs, because how can I defend something which isn't even there? Atheism is as much a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby - I don't recall who said something like that in this thread, but it was brilliant. If you still feel Atheists should bring forth concrete evidence of the non-existence of a God or anything supernatural, consider that the Flying Teapot is equally unprovable as the Christian God (or any other God), just more obviously absurd.

Atheism on the individual level in and of itself is not a belief system, more than it is an opinion. The same could be said for theology. Where we derail from that is when large groups of people come together and say "Now, here's WHY God does/doesn't exist...". That's where a network of belief systems is created. I'm not making the argument that because you can't prove the flying teapot doesn't exist, it must therefor exist. I'm making the argument that atheism, by it's inherent nature, voids out the possibility of a Grand Creator, and fills that void with it's own set of values and belief systems.

The flying teapot argument is funny, but it's really a red haring to the core issue: replacing one form of belief for another.

At 9/21/08 03:50 PM, fli wrote: If you really want to defeat your foe, defeat him with perpetual love. It's the most difficult weapon to yield and takes years to skill to handle properly. Once you've done that, you've become a real warrior at heart.

Nice post, fli. Been a while since I've browsed the forums. You've gone up a few impressive notches in the art of putting thoughts into words.

Everyone needs a religion.

The fallacy in thinking about religion is that people assume it's this iron shackle tying down the human experience and ability to think outside conventional means. With all due respect, that's their respective identification of religion.

Whether a person is an atheist or a theist, that person will develop a personal belief system in one form or another. The only exception is is if you're an outright nihilist, and couldn't give one shit from the wind about the true meaning of anything.

If you believe there is a higher power, even if you're agnostic, you've taken a small step into religion because religion requires a faith-based response to an observation. Atheists tend to replace a majority of faith with logical inference and science. Ultimately though, the claim that a higher power doesn't exist also requires faith, because it can't be proven.

The real question should be "Do we really need faith?". It's my personal observation that faith is a part of the human experience, whether you believe in God or not. Ultimately, any given stance has a foundation in one form of faith or another.

Except for the Nihilists. Fucking marmot owning Johnson cutters.

At 9/29/08 10:33 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Obama is a socialist who wants to take our country to hell. I will kill anyone who tries to take away my second ammendment rights. and he wants to break taxes down for middle class well how is he going to do that if he wants to implement universal healthcare if you want that you would have to raise taxes.

It's not universal health care. Under Obama's plan you have the option to go with private health care or federal health care. Only children are required to have universal health care if they qualify.

As for raising taxes, it's going to have to happen eventually. The Bush Tax Cuts probably would have worked out a lot better if we hadn't been dragged into spending billions in Iraq. Why do Americans (not you specifically) think we can keep low taxes while playing superhero in the middle-east?

At 9/9/08 09:50 PM, The-Mage wrote: mcain picked a wonderful choice. She has the only executive experience out of all 4 candidates. Only female, and best of all, only conservative.

most people are smart enough realize he picked her for us. not women.

I have to strongly disagree. The best choice (debatably) would have been Romney. Given what McCain wants to do overseas, the state of the economy, and the need to satisfy the religious vote Romney should have been a shoe in for the VP.

Why he wasn't could be a factor of many things; too much like McCain, the Mormon issue, wouldn't help that Obama still had the edge of age on his side, etc.

Palin offers absolutely nothing new the table that the other nominees had. Palin is quite possibly the most blatant political tool for the VP since Dick Cheney himself.

At 9/8/08 12:48 AM, Acid wrote: I want to hear people's opinions on who should be the next president and why.

I vote for which direction I want to see the country taken in.

McCain's philosophy on foreign policy empowers the idea that America should spend billions of dollars funding our dominance over the middle-east. I'd rather see that money used for something else.

I'm voting for Obama, because his demeanor, his policies, and his general outlook on the world are very forward looking, rather than coercively trying to keep hold of the status quo.

In general, I like Obama because he's a rational, down to earth, extremely educated person, and although I don't agree with him on a lot of issues (like abortion) I agree with him more than I disagree with him. As for McCain, I don't like where he wants to lead us for the next 4 years. Plain and simple.

Awesome. I spelled the godamn title wrong. That's great. >=(

I'm having a very, very hard time finding any saving grace to NeoConservative ideology. It takes quite a while to understand what the hell a NeoConservative is to those fond to politics, much less getting the average joe to understand.

I'm hoping Cellardoor can come to my rescue on this one. Though I'm unsure of his thoughts on the Bush administration, I recall a few times in the past an unwavering loyalty to American hegemony to areas of the world that are kind of a pain in the ass. Of course I still think he's batshit insane, but he makes a good argument now and then, nontheless.

Seriously, though. Is NeoConservatism good just on paper? Or is it really a good concept, but the rodeo clown in the oval office just doesn't have the leadership skills to pull the ideology off correctly?

At 8/6/08 09:53 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/6/08 09:43 PM, Nylo wrote:

that evidence of a higher power

What evidence?
WHAT EVIDENCE?

"the laws of the universe" isn't evidence for ANYTHING.

YOU UNDERSTAND?

IT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.

"the laws of the universe isn't evidence for anything" should be the quote of the year. The laws of the universe are what govern and give science it's report, not to mention it's purpose in life. Whether or not you believe universal laws have any ties to theology is a matter worth debate. Saying universal laws aren't evidence of "anything" sounds like an interesting tale told by some hobo protesting outside a Starbucks.

Please clarify what you mean by "laws of the universe aren't evidence of anything". Because common sense would indicate they're evidence of our own reality.

You're applying the scientific method to faith, which is useless.

That's the trick people use to say "well I have no evidence but I want to believe, so instead of admitting that I'm pulling aaaaaaaaall of this out of my ass, I will attack science and act like they don't know everything so that gives me some magic seer-like insights into the workings of the universe!"

I'm not "attacking" science, I'm challenging it's assertion that theology is all wrong. It's the nature of science to be challenged, so that it can grow and continuously become more correct over time. If you honestly believe I should take science, especially your version at that, at face value I might as well stick to theology. Because I'd be relying on faith alone that you know what the hell you're talking about.

but modern science can't prove or disprove the reality of an intelligent designer

That's because it's a non-idea, a non-concept that you are UTTERLY foolish to believe in.
Utterly, utterly foolish and WRONG.

Hahahaha. I seriously respect your opinion, I do. Though at this statement I have to say you're dead wrong. This "non-idea" as you put it has shaped the image of human history every bit as much as empiricism and science has. It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to claim there is no truth to religion without offering a theological replacement of your own; which is exactly what you're doing. True science doesn't seek to topple theology; rather it works around it, completely indifferent of it.

You still haven't answered.
Where's your intelligent designer concept?
What is it? How does it work? What does it do? What rules does it abide by?

My concept of an intelligent designer, through my own eyes, is evident in 1) the fact that life exists at all, 2) that life and existence follow rules and guidelines, and 3) that human beings among all living things are unique in their cognitive abilities.

Aside from that, I'll just be reiterating scripture to you. You'd rather place your faith in mankind than in possibilities beyond that which we can percieve; and that's your right, of course. Your ultimate irony is that you have faith, when you claim to have none at all.

You can't answer any of this because you haven't thought about it for one damn second. All you did was explain a mystery with a BIGGER mystery and tried to pass it off as legitimate faith instead of the bullshit that it really is.

Ok, Pox. Please tell me, empirically, how existence began through your reason and logic. I'd love to hear how this doesn't dabble into the realm of faith. It's humorous, because what I often hear most is that "there was never a claim that we knew". Which is essentially saying "we don't know, so we pretend it doesn't exist until we can explain it."

So go on. Please tell me, without any measure of faith, how the universe was created in logical, scientific form. I look forward to you explaining how this is another one of those dastardly Christian tricks.

At 8/6/08 04:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How exactly is Confucius' writings even remotely as relevant as Darwin's?

I guess that all depends on how you view human history. China's status as an empire had profoundly affected and influenced the way other nations began to govern their people. Darwin's writings are to science and reason what Confucious' writings were to government, civility, and stability.

I'm by no means saying that Confucius and Darwin are comparable when compared in one field, but rather for their time and place they put into motion huge strides and new ideas that advanced the way humans lived their lives and viewed the world around them.

At 8/6/08 04:45 PM, PineappleWinnie wrote: I am not saying that Obama himself will do this. I am not saying that Obama will go mad and wacko like that. But he may lead politics that may weaken the USA (in a wide-sense) to the point where Islam can actually stand a chance. He might go soft on Muslims, and even somewhat promote Islam in a very subtle way, making more people to either convert to Islam (ads, mosques, etc), or make it easier for those abroad to come in. It would be then these folks, several years in the future, who may actually make Islam stronger and stronger within the USA. Its not what Obama himself will do as a President, but the many subtle doors he may open that don't really convince me. He can make it easy for Islam to get through. This itself shoult not be an issue, but it sadly is, as Muslims consider that they need to conquer the West (which is represented by the USA and Europe).

I respect your views, however I find this among the least of all things to worry about Obama. The fear of Islam is rooted in ethnocentrism. The U.S.A. is the most religious western nation and has military bases all over the globe, not to mention the most powerful military that's ever existed. Fearing a rise in Islam is, in my own humble opinion, a fear that our culture is under attack and that other rising belief systems must be subverted. It's an argument for hegemony over other cultures.

Though I'm an Obama supporter, I'm still objective. I think the most worrisome thing about him is his globalized, socialistic view of the world. He's not just trying to appease the United States, he's trying to appease the EU and middle eastern nations. If elected, Obama will flush out the NeoConservative administration and bring in new leftist blood. It will be a radical departure from the last 8 years.

I truly believe Obama will deliver on his promise to change America. What the agenda for that change will actually be is a question every American should ask themselves before they vote. I, for one, am willing to take that risk.

At 8/6/08 09:13 PM, poxpower wrote: That is all babble.
State clearly what you mean by intelligent designer, and show us what it explains, how it explains it and tell us what it predicts.

The concept of an intelligent designer merely observes the complexity of the universe, and concludes that evidence of a higher power creating it is evident in the laws of nature that life appears to follow. Most humans will agree with the concept of there being a higher power of some sort beyond this life.

Find a test to verify your claim.

Then you have something.
Until then, you have nothing. You have a fairytale wrapped in a cloud, surrounded by an enigma and cast in the world by magic.

You're applying the scientific method to faith, which is useless. There's no doubt that science is as crucial as the air we breathe, but it's not the end-all be-all truth to the universe. You can't rely on empiricism to explain everything in the world. My stomach wretches at the thought of learning about the raw power of love, music, and art through the pages of a science book.

But back on point, your claim that religion is nothing but a fairytale wrapped in a cloud is, in itself, a political and faith-based belief. You can make a claim against the inconsistencies of organized religion, but modern science can't prove or disprove the reality of an intelligent designer through empiricism. Science can barely agree on global warming, as it were.

But again, this is an argument for the concept of an intelligent designer. Actually teaching this concept as a science in the classroom is an ENTIRELY different thing; which I don't agree with at all unless it falls under religious studies.