At 5/16/08 01:59 AM, Grammer wrote:

No, because Hiroshima existing was not the reason Hiroshima was bombed. Our knowledge of nuclear reactions was one of the reasons Hiroshima got nuked.

I don't see how the knowledge of nuclear bombs instructs to drop them on a town named "Hiroshima". Or instructs to drop them. Or how knowledge of nuclear fission tells you to make bombs. That's pure human.

I wouldn't blame Christianity for killing anyone (though you sure as fuck would),

Well if it said in the bible "go kill atheists" then I would. Why not?

Hahaha, oh wow. Way to have it both ways. Okay, so every action an atheist commits is their fault, no one else. NOT SO WITH CHRISTIANS. All of their actions are attributed to religion.

As I explained, atheism does not give our morals or laws, Christianity does. If you can blame a bad law, you can blame a religion.

Thou shall not commit murder is a pretty basic tenet of Christianity.

The state of Texas has the death penalty. But of course, there's always excuses to kill, right?
For instance, the witch hunts. No, not "murders", but "judgment". Right.

I don't even know what he's talking about. Law of man? The Old Testament? The Ten Commandments? I have no idea, you cut out a tiny passage from a chapter of The Book of Luke, and now I'm expected to believe you?

Well don't you have the bible? You claim to read it a lot to I assume you have it.
Here, I'll help you ( not that you need it since you've read the bible cover to cover! I sure have nothing to teach you about what's in the bible and what isn't, right? ) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea rch=Matthew%205;&version=31;
BAM, ONLINE BIBLE.

Read it, it's all there and made very clear what Jesus said.
Unless you're calling Matthew a liar of course.

Woah look at that, verse 21: "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Holy shit, you must be able to smell your balls roasting right now!

Haha, the bible, only someone who hasn't read it would be a christian.

Okay, I'm bored, you're not worth spending 45 minutes + responding to everything you sa

In conclusion, holy shit you've been destroyed. Yeah let's just skip all the parts about Jesus, THE SON OF GOD, contradicting what you just said about what was in the bible.
How humble of you.

At 5/16/08 12:45 AM, Grammer wrote:

Would Hiroshima have happened if we didn't have knowledge of nuclear reactions?

Of course not.
Would it have happened if the town of Hiroshima didn't exist?
Will you blame that too?

If I'm an atheist, and I kill you because you're not atheist, well what the fuck do you think just happened?

Well let's say I go kill someone in the name of the king of France.
Are you going to blame the king of France?

It's funny, because The Bible doesn't say kill innocent people either

Well have fun with the website I posted.

I literally copypasta'd your sentence and replaced "atheist" with "Christian". And guess what? The sentence still makes sense.

yeah, grammatically. Like "I love cubic spheres". Makes sense.

You can't blame the religion because some retard is going to look at it in the completely wrong way.

I'm 100% sure no two Christians would agree on everything that is in the bible.
So There's probably one real Christian somewhere out there laughing at you guys.

Hehe, that site is so cute, it cites The Old Testament

Jesus was in favor of the old testament. And isn't the Old Testament the word of God anyway? Did he change his mind when Jesus was born?

Jesus taught his disciples to respect the Ten Commandments, that never changed.

Well ok here's the quotes:

""It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)" from Jesus's mouth.

Clearly says that the old testament is still valid. Sorry, you lose, Jesus said it.

""For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) "
And he's not talking about the actual list of 10 commandments either :o He's talking about the whole thing.

More?

ok :

""Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.""

""All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB"

""Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)"

No PROPHECY or SCRIPTURE that is a matter of personnal interpretation. Hear that? That's from the new testament. How on EARTH could you think that means "you can ignore the old testament"???

"Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)" ( from Jesus again, who what a nice guy )

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Matthew 15:4-7)

It goes on and on and on.
That's in the bible. You can't call upon "biased sources" here, this is from the bible, the book which you yourself use to preach to others.

Sorry.

Do you blame Ploppleism? All it did was say earn money.

Correction: here's how you defined it:
"Ploppleism is a set of beliefs that says money is really really good, and you should always strive to acquire more. "

So yes, clearly, I would blame that set of rules for his actions. Also you need to add " God said that..." in there as well to really make it into a religion like Christianity.
You can easily interpret that as saying "Whatever you have to do, you MUST acquire more money, always".

Is it ploppleism's fault that Lemmy disobeyed his religion's teachings and stole?

When did you say it said "don't steal"? You just added that right now :o
And then it would contradict itself ( like christianity does ) so yes I would still blame it.

If it says like:
"Do WHATEVER YOU CAN to get more money"
"Don't steal"

But in like elaborate and obscure stories, it would be extremely easy to never even read the "don't steal" bits, sort of like you haven't read the "the Old Testament still applies" parts of the bible apparently.

To parralel this to atheism, you'd have to say something like "John doesn't believe money is the most important thing" or something like that, which I don't see could make him really do anything.

Religious people don't follow good morals because they just think it's good, they follow it based on what Jesus said. So in that way, they don't believe the morals, they believe the guy who taught them.
It's the difference between simply following what confucius says without having ever heard of him and following what he says BECAUSE he's confucius, which is what a christian does. They don't follow Jesus' teaching for any other reasons than because he' s the son of God. All other reasons are accessory to that all-important fact.

At 5/15/08 09:07 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

One of the greatest doctors of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, arguably has proved in his writings, such as the Summa Theologica, that there is, and must be, a God.

Holy shit, the pathetically lousy arguments of this 13th ( or was it 12th ) century clergyman was all it took for you to fall for Christianity?

He has never proved ANYTHING beyond is boundless ability to commit logical fallacies by the truckload. What are you going to cite next? Pascal's Wager?

I'm telling you, I've heard it all before. Give it your best shot. Throw all the arguments you possibly can at me, pitch me quotes. Anything. I've seen it all. You think that sounds arrogant? What if I was right? What if I REALLY had seen all the same arguments as you but instead of stopping my reading then, I kept on learning?

Chuck it at me. Give me something precise. You want a civil discourse? Well put some meat on the table.

At 5/15/08 10:56 PM, Grammer wrote:

I know that was just a metaphor, but what you just said is true. Knowledge of nuclear reactions was to blame for Hiroshima.

Well if that's the kind of definition you want for "blame"

It doesn't have to. If you kill someone because they believe in a God, and you hate that, then you just killed in the name of atheism.

Maybe you think you did. But you didn't. Atheism is nothing. There's no "atheist authorities" or "atheist books" or "important atheist documents" or whatever. Every action that any atheist does can only be accounted for by himself. The same would be said for pantheism, deism, agnostism and even a theism if you don't get into it too much.
But the minute that you have a book where "god's laws" are written, then you can blame that book for giving people the wrong ideas and you can blame the belief system for bringing up people to believe they should do what the book says.

Don't know if that makes more sense now.

Does that mean you will never blame Christianity for any wars?

You can certainly blame the bible since there are passages in it that instruct you to kill others.

Okay, show me the passage of The Bible that says go kill people you don't like.

law this site is so biased: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
But I imagine you have a bible, so you can go check if it's there. And lots of it is from the old testament, but I never once saw any bible quotes in the new testament that say "don't use the old testament anymore".
Maybe they do exist, if so I'd like to see them :o

Ploppleism = Christianity

I don't see the point you were making here. Are you like agreeing with me?

At 5/15/08 06:27 PM, Grammer wrote:

I do believe it would be fair though, in all due respect, to say atheism at least had an influence in Stalin's murderous tyranny. I do believe that Stalin, and I could be wrong, exterminated persons on the sole basis of their religious convictions. I mean sure, blame the fact he was bat shit insane, not that he was an atheist, but ya know, he did seek to destroy religion, didn't he?

To say that atheism had a hand in Stalin's dealings is like saying knowledge of nuclear reactions was to blame for hiroshima.

Atheism does not say anything about how you should act. Nothing. Hence, it cannot be blamed as a set of beliefs for inspiring behavior in people since it doesn't say anything about what you should do in the first place.

But you can easily use the argument that religion is to blame since religion specifically tries to tell people how to act, hence someone doing something that is talked about in a religious document can indeed blame the text, especially if he thought it was written by God.

An atheist could never use "divine influence" as a reason to commit any act, he'd have to reason it out and whatever conclusion he comes down to have nothing to do with atheism but more to do with the information he was fed to reach any conclusion that he reached and acted on.
So in that way, every religious person who ever did anything bad that could be infered from a religious text puts the blame on religion, but no matter how many atheists do horrible things, even claiming those things are "in the name of atheism", you will never be able to blame atheism itself for it.

I know it sounds really unfair right off the bat, but it's not. Atheism has nothing to do with morals, laws, or whatever else. Whatever conclusions one atheist reaches ( like, killing religious people is ok ) could be directly opposed to a conclusion another atheist would reach since neither of them used "atheism" to figure out their conclusion, even if they are both under the idea that they did.

At 5/15/08 07:12 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/15/08 06:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?

Your mom?

You know who else had a mom?

At 5/15/08 07:32 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

No, I left cause your an asshole. You want me to stay, sure, I'll sure as hell friggen stay. I just wanted to debate with people who aren't directly saying "I'm wrong your right deal with it."

So you think you're right?
Then surely you must have some good evidence backing the bible up. I mean, you must have studies that clearly demonstrate prayer works wonders. I'm sure you have tons of scientific data that shows how the flood happened.
Or alternately, where's your evidence from within the bible that the flood story is to be taken metaphorically?

Don't like me assuming you believe certain things? Then list what you believe and I'll show you why you're wrong. You want to talk about it? Then lay that down on the table and let's talk about it and let's figure out just how wrong you might be, or how wrong I might be!

At 5/15/08 07:47 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

You may think its just a load of garbage, but I will believe it and defend it to the grave.

Without having any proof yourself either, that's the beauty of it.
No one says anything because you're not harming anyone, but anyone with that attitude who's have beliefs like driving drunk and beating kids, you'd hear people tell him he's an egomaniac instantly.

we don't know who is right.

If you're Christian, math says there's a 99.999999% chance you're wrong tough.
Sorry : (

but how do you know that maybe Buddhism is the right one?

There is zero proof that points towards it, so why would I be buddhist?
If you admit this, how can you be christian? All you can ever be is atheist. No one said you have to pick any religion.

So far, all you have is a theory. Atheism may be considered a fact to you

It's not proven, only mathematicians prove things.
But it's far more likely that the simple statement "there is no force that created the universe with intent" is right than "there is a God who sent Jesus to earth to pardon my sins and he told people to write a book about him". Then chances of THAT being right are ASTRONOMICALLY small and they grower smaller every time a smart guy peers into a telescope and discovers more of our universe's impossible size.

As long as its kept to oneself, who gives a fuck.

Well if you're on a forum talking about it, then we both give a fuck at least that much apparently.

I was not born into Catholicism. I chose it.

haha suuuuuuuure you were born a muslim. Or a buddhist.
So what were you? A "protestant" or like a "baptist" or whatever other little branches of your religion?
Just because you pick a smaller sect within your big sect doesn't suddenly mean you weren't born into it.

I don't know of a single example of someone being an adult and converting to any of the major Theist religions.
Oh wait I do know some examples; you see, some people have an almost pathological need to belong and they hop from religion to religion until they find "the right one", which of course probably never happens as they keep switching, saying "NOW THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE" and then changing again later.

Though revelation he has told us so. All Catholics understand about God came from Revelation.

So he's not all-forgiving then, there's conditions.
If I had infinite power, I'd be way nicer than that asshole :o

These "Primitive people" you speak of, are the founders and fathers of Judaism. And much of the text about Abraham and even John the Baptist can be found in the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all the same one religion branched into 3 different sects. We all know that. The most hilarious part is that they all admit that the first texts cam from God and then all differ on which other ones can from God while at the same time telling everyone the same thing you say "oh I know it in my heart" or some crap.

I really don't care whether I'm in a cult or not.

Well that's ok, but don't come crying if I call you a tool.
You can do whatever you want if it makes you happy, but I can also tell you how there's virtually no chance that what makes you happy is real.

You know who else invoked Godwin's Law?

At 5/15/08 01:57 PM, n64kid wrote:

I'm saying majority vote in favor of 21, it's a democracy, if the majority agrees on something and you don't, your opinion is void.

Again with the example of women vote or black slavery. Even if the majority can vote laws, you have to realize that it doesn't mean it ends the discussion or that they were right about it and it's "too bad" and we shouldn't try to change it anymore.

Why can't I unify supporting results?

You didn't even unify the results, you took the sample from one, the process of another and then the results of another one and said it like it was one study that showed this conclusion.
I shouldn't have to explain why this is wrong :o

Yet one study of American youth is all we need for me to say it moderates out at 21.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jul2006/niaaa -03.htm

Tada. See how the numbers drastically decline?

I already explained why that conclusion was skewed:
"The survey was done IN THE U.S., where, as I stated, if you drink before you're 21, you're breaking the law, and people who are prone to doing such things are usually the same kind of people who abuse drugs, work a shit job, drink a lot etc.
Furthermore, it says "9%" of people become alcoholics after they start consuming after they turn 21. But that is very misleading because that is the legal age, so you would expect that it's the age that most people start drinking, hence just skewing the numbers WAY down since most people won't ever become alcoholics."

If you can find that same kind of study done in another country that really shows that 9% decrease falling STRAIGT on the 21, then you'd have something.

It was YOUR point that since America is the richest and "best" country, it must be right to have the age of 21.

Which it is.

To which I said, if China becomes the richest and "best" country, you'd have to accept the "no drinking minimum" rule under that argument. Then you went on about how China is different so it doesn't count.

Make it one, otherwise drink with your parents or some guardian who's 21.

You were trying to make the argument that it was ok since you could drink with an adult even if you weren't 21, but people 18+ want a social life that doesn't include their parents.
o.O

Yet you seem to want it lowered to 18, if you lived in China you'd say there shouldn't be a law against it. So cultural relevance is part of it.

But "culture" is not an argument. At all.

Yet 500 calories of chocoalte=500 calories of apples.

500 calories of chocolate = 200 grams
500 calories of apples = 2 pounds. Or something like that.
Chocolate is too dangerous to be left alive. We should kill it.

Apparently you had to go to 1998 to waste my time.

Ok seriously, sorry to insult you at this point, but that's just stupid of you. They sell like 150 000 jet skis per year and somehow you think an article from 1998 is the only instance of anyone having fatal Jet Ski accidents and that 10 years later, no one has accidents?
Ridiculous. And it's even besides the point completely. I could have said 4x4s, dirt bikes, bungee jumping, base jumping WHATEVER.

Sigh, a couple of deaths from misuse vs deaths even when alcohol is used in moderation.

No one has ever died from responsible alcohol use. Ever.

Cars function as transportation, alcohol functions as an inhibitor.

Or just food or drinks or pleasure. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRINK UNTIL YOU FALL DOWN.

I already showed how alcohol has a negative inpact on commerce. Do I have to prove that cars have a positive one now?

Car crashes probably cost billions and billions ever year. Not to mention the impossibly high cost of building and maintaining highway. Of course cars are good for the economy, but so is the sale of alcohol. Thousands upon thousands of people's jobs depend directly from making beer, wine, spirits etc.

But some Canadian wants you to work harder and be more skilled.

They're not forcing you, they're giving you opportunities, just as your employer can say "come to work drunk one more time and you're fired".

We went over this already, didn't we? Bar owners and patrons don't want kids around when they drink/serve alcohol.

They don't want ILLEGALS. Bar owners and patrons here are perfectly fine with 18-20 drinkers.
If they serve alcohol to minors, they can get arrested and have their license revoked. So in the U.S. they card EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME. It's really annoying when you're 27 and you get carded at every restaurant when you order a beer. Here? Almost no carding.

The legal gambling age is 19 years of age in Canada, right?

It's 18 in quebec, 19 where it's also 19 to drink, cause they serve alcohol in there.

I don't think internet gaming is legal at all.

That's because people kept getting ripped off. It wasn't to protect people from themselves, it was to protect people from asshole internet companies trying to steal their cash.

Let's make a thread about the gambling age in Canada being lowered.

The reason why they have one extra year tacked on their ages outside Quebec is because there was one more year of High School. But they removed that in Ontario I think, but just you wait and see how hard a time they'll have trying to get to lower the age of alcohol to 18.

Then wait, you have to be 25 to rent a car.

That's up to rental companies to decide. You can rent one when you're younger but it costs you WAY MORE.

The thing here is freedoms ar every hard to take away in the first place once it's been established.

And that's bad because???

Same with prohibition in the 20s. We got our right to drink back because of American culture turning to the mafia and giving the government the finger.

Yeah and rightly so. Same has been happening with drugs for DECADES. The war on drugs is a money hole and higher ages of consumption for anything are just one part of that whole idiot shebang yet you don't realize it for some reason.

Because black people have a right to exist and women have a right to vote.

And kids have a right to drink.

Your opinion being outnumbered means that our culture doesn't see the way you do.

Again, a terrible argument. I refer you to the civil war: half of american was for slavery, the other hald wasn't. So? Who was right? The ones who won the war?

Except I'm still a whiles away from being 21, so I do have the privilege to gain from it.

You said yourself that you get to drink because you travel. So you do enjoy the freedom to drink yet you'd deny it to others who don't have the money to travel like you do.

At 5/15/08 03:52 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Once faith becomes a part of it, a Christian loses the need to argue their beliefs, and gains the need to minister their faith.

In other words, once a Christian has been beaten in 400 debates about religion, it's time to move on and instead of admitting they're full of shit and following a lie, they discard everything that takes any effort to do in their religion ( sabbath, praying a lot, confessions, attending church every week, not having sex before marriage, not lying, not cheating on their spouse etc. etc. )and re-brand it into a more general theist view so they can call themselves "Christians" while they're with other "Christians" but still save face when people ask them if they think the earth is 6000 years old or if God flooded the earth.

In short: being as hypocritical and compromising as possible is the true life goal of any Christian.

No, you don't have to argue why someone should "join" Christianity. As a matter of fact, you don't "join" Christianity.

Anything that you can't come logically to join or understand has one name: A CULT YOU'RE BORN INTO.

And that this God is willing to forgive you and offer you the greatness of his Kingdom in heaven if you accept Jesus the true messiah into your heart and believe that he died to absolve you of your sins.

Why should there be conditions for my forgiveness if he is eternally forgiving?
Proof #23 891 283 that the bible was written by people. Primitive people.

Because you aren't ready to accept it.

Ever thought that you might be the one who's not ready to accept that your religion is a cult and a complete fabrication?

le lol http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/
c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell

At 5/14/08 11:11 PM, n64kid wrote:

Culture, MASS opinion vs your individual one.

argument from the masses, i.e. logical fallacy, i.e. are you even serious?

And what did it show?

The same thing we all know: the people who drink the earliest have the highest chance to become alcoholics.
So what? Tough shit for those morons if they can't control themselves. Nothing indicates that "21" is the age at which suddenly people stop getting addicted to alcohol.

Pay attention to every link I gave you =P

I've looked at your links
You can't mash them all up together and pretend that if you take 1 finding here and 1 finding there you can make up a frankenstein conclusions that supports your views.
So far, what you did is take one study from out of the U.S., one that tested people up to 21, and one that tested people from 16 to 30 and then put all of them together to say "Data from all over the world on thousands of people show that the right age is 21" which is a bold-faced lie.
You can't do that. That's not how studies work o.O

You were talking about that, I was talking about productivity.

Of the car breathalyzer.

1.2 billion people vs 300 million. China is still a third world country overloaded with particle pollution and have some sort of fetish with the American Buick. Yet they have worse social problems than Americans do, so your point isn't even valid.

It was YOUR point that since America is the richest and "best" country, it must be right to have the age of 21.

It's cool for 14 year olds, did you get a chance to read the ones about drinking in your home?

My home is not a bar or a night club.

Except I was for bringing the age down to mid-late teens aswell. I questioned myself and saw that more data backs a 21 drinking age from around the world. That and what you keep ignoring, culture.

What culture? As far as I can tell you're still under the impression that your links you found somehow prove the age of 21 to be the best when it doesn't show that AT ALL.
The only "culture" argument is that in the US, the drinking age is 21. So it's completely circular logic to justify the age of 21 because the age happens to be 21.
Ridiculous.

Then fortify chocolate with vitamins like everyone else does. No more empty calories.

Why? You'd still get fat. There's no "diet chocolate" around. Even 90% cocoa chocolate is high in calories and makes you a fat ass.

Jet Ski owners and people who swim.

Name one.

Dear Lord...
here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9A02EEDA1439F933A15756C0A96E95826 0
Apparently there's a couple of morons who die and get into accidents each year.

Man what a scourge, let's ban them! Use a boat instead, guys lolol

Without me explaining, can you see how it doesn't apply?

No.
If you can say something like "guns don't kill people" then I can say "alcohol doesn't kill people".

Or Canada.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Those have nothing to do with forcing people to work harder.
If you go to work drunk like a dumbass, your ass gets fired. Tough shit. Do you need the government to tell you to not go into work drunk?

I get your point but I can shove a bunch of stats with alcohol to show that what you said doesn't... aw fuck it.

Doesn't what?

First, America has Canada and Mexico if we want to get smashed and then do damage that's not in this country. Second, were you a dipshit when you were 17?

I wasn't a dipshit ever.
And yeah, people in the middle states love to travel all the way to Canada every weekend to buy beer. I'm sure bar owners wouldn't appreciate the extra local business anyways.

You have some paranoid domino effect theory where if they take away one freedom, what's stopping them from coming up with similar reasons to ban other things.

Not even. It's fine to have an "adult age" for things, but either 21 is too high or 18 is too low and based on everything everywhere on earth, 21 seems to clearly be too high.
My argument is that once you give away a freedom, there's virtually no arguments to get it back. It doesn't mean people will take more and more away, it just means you've probably lost that one bit for good and people like you don't give a shit or even realize it.

Proteas and I seem to place more emphasis on what our society wants

This is a terrible argument. Again I bring up women's vote, black people etc. but you pretend like somehow the argument doesn't apply to that but it does for other things.
No, sorry, the argument for the masses has no sway, ever. Just because we're a democracy when it comes to making some laws and electing presidents does not mean the right choice will be made. For instance, some morons in the southern states have managed to vote creationism into schools. They're definitely wrong about this, no doubt. None. But that's what their society wanted.

Does it sound like a good argument? No.

Maybe it's because we actually live in the country?

I think it's because you've enjoyed that right all your life and so you don't give a shit if anyone else gets to enjoy it as well since you have nothing to gain from it.
That's what I think.

At 5/14/08 11:22 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

To answer your question, I suppose Phenomenology could be what you were talking about, and PoxPower....

I'm not even gonna bother to answer to you. You act as if your some all knowing god on earth when really your just an asshole.

8-)
Aaaaaaaaaah christians, always retreating at the first sight of anyone plowing their beliefs in the ass and using "he's mean" as an excuse.
I've heard that strategy countless times now. Wether people are nice to you guys or not, you ALWAYS make yourselves the victim and randomly pop out of the debate because of it.

Go confess your sins of pride right now.

sorry for not answering this question for the 10th time... :O

At 5/14/08 09:29 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

God for me is basically the why. I don't really believe in the conventional definition that god is some stupid overseer something.

Well that's what God is, sorry. God = something that created the universe with intent.

It's merely the why. The matter itself. Everything. God and the universe are the same to me. So what should I call it, based on conventional terms?

The universe.
If you refer to the beginning of the universe, you have to say "the beginning of the universe". I know it sounds complicated, but you'll get used to it.

You'll never get anywhere using the word "God" because to a scientist, it sounds religious, and to a religious person, it sounds like you agree with them.

At 5/14/08 10:27 PM, MattBlackguard wrote:

"I once prayed to God for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and then prayed for his forgiveness." (Emo Phillips)

That rules.

At 5/14/08 10:48 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

Yes, but God understands that it is difficult for us

Yeah you know what God thinks. Haha.

You're acting as if you've never been sorry in your whole damn life.

I don't think the creator of the universe cares when I touch my penis or say "God is a gaylord". On the other hand, you apparently do yet you probably act in real life just as I do.
So either it takes 0 effort to be of your religion, or you're a terrible, terrible christian.

Well, that would be something you would confess. If you don't really mean it, then you will most likely have to work it off in Purgatory.

Why would God make you work it off in purgatory anyways? What does he give a shit what you do after you're dead? And what is it that you do there all day I wonder.

after their conversion and/or spiritual connection with God.

(continued from previous bout of laughter )...ahahahaaaha
Well it's pretty hard to prove they did sin 500 years after they're dead and no one remembers a damn thing about them.
Anyways, my grandfather could call forth lightning and when he rubbed this special oil on his scrotum, he could fly. But the recipe for the sack oil has been lost since then. But I swear, he could do it.

Humanity is generally weak WILLED. Its why we fall into sin so often.

Why did God make you weak willed and then expects you to not sin and to be sorry for what you do based on the way he made you?
If he knew you were going to make these mistakes, why would he care if you're sorry about them later on? It's his fault for making you that way. If I make a shitty flash movie, I have no one but me to blame when the animations are all fucked up and the mouth animations don't synch up with the voices.
God sounds like a dumbass who hits his foot on the side of a bed he put there and then yells at the bed.

No, not those kinds of temptations. Like the temptation to murder out of anger, or cheat on a spouse.

Yeah I think not murdering someone is not that difficult of a task, especially of you believe you're going to hell for it. Or cheating on someone you love.
But hey, Christians do it at a higher rate than atheists. So yeah your religion is completely useless, sorry :(
Did you know the divorce rate for christians is higher than the divorce rate for atheists? Yet it clearly says "TILL DEATH DO US PART" when you get married.

In conclusion: lol christians aren't serious.

Anyways if it sounds like I'm making fun of you when I'm not even trying, maybe it's because you never thought of your religion the way I present it to you and maybe you just realized it sorta sounds ridiculous as hell.

At 5/14/08 09:12 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

Because God forgives us if we are truly sorry, and we are encouraged to "Go out and sin no more."

No, see you have to avoid sins.
Because that's what a sin is, something you have to avoid doing. If you do it in a moment of weakness, you have to be TRULY sorry.
As in, you really regret it and you think about it all the time and you wish you hadn't done it.

Not bullshit like "oh btw priest I jerked off and fucked this bitch and cursed at my kids, but like sorry Jesus".

Besides, many of our Saints have lived without sin

haaaaaaahahahahaha

Many of us aim towards that, but it is continually difficult due to the society we live in,

:,(

our weakness

of course God is not to blame for making you weak. Right?

and the many temptations we receive throughout our days.

DAMN YOU CHOCOLATE!!
What tempts people to curse I wonder. "Thou shall not say my name in vain" or whatever crap. That's probably the most commonly broken one from Christians.
What on earth could "tempt" you to do this so bad?

At 5/14/08 09:29 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

The fact is you can define anything any way you want to, because you have free will.

When you debate, you have to make every word you use as clear and precise as possible. Otherwise you're not debating the actual subject of the debate, you're debating the meaning of the words you misused, like we're doing now because you keep making up definitions for words.

At 5/14/08 05:47 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

We are hypocritical douche bags because we're all sinful.

You are because you KNOWINGLY sin while preaching that is it against what Jesus/God said.
How can you live with yourselves?

At 5/14/08 06:09 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 5/14/08 01:08 PM, poxpower wrote:
you need to stop pretending you know the definition of words when you don't.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

That's the definition that people use when they're making a joke, like "yeah jerking off 5 times a day is my new religion LAWL".

At 5/14/08 05:18 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

What about loans and mortgages, are those 18 as well? Car rental?

That's up to the companies to decide.
Given the minimal legal age they can rent cars to whatever ages they want, and insurance companies can insure people of any age ( of course they ask for more $$$ the younger you are ).
Banks will let anyone with money do whatever they want as far as I know. Banks usually require a backer when you're young, but you can get a credit card when you're 18 or even younger.
I don't think there is a law on that, nor should there be.

Firearms permits?

Well you can operate guns at any age given parental supervision. You can only purchase guns if you have a licence from 18+ I think. Probably the same goes for renting heavy-duty shit like cranes, forklifts, tractors, chainsaws etc.

My folks were grandfathered in when the feds originally jacked the age from 19 to 21 back in the 70's. It's too bad that some states already had an age 21 restriction, otherwise the feds would've had a helluva time adopting the higher age instead of the lower, or even the average.

Yeah well that's how it is. Canada rules.

At 5/14/08 03:01 AM, n64kid wrote:

La la la your opinion.

Why do you think they amend the constitution?

This does not apply for America because the Muslim countries have real penalties for catching you, it's banned for all muslim citizens, and it's banned directly from religion.

Yeah, that's my point, only religion would be stupid enough to ban alcohol completely.

Nuu what part of non US didn't you get?
try the one I posted earlier
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs /10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00846.x

Cutoff point: 21 YEARS OLD.
You claim there is a study that followed THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE from ALL OVER THE WORLD that showed that 21 was the age even if they followed people to like 25 or 30 or whatever number you made up.
I haven't seen that study. It doesn't exist, I checked your links.

But the thing is, YOU keep mixing up studies. One shows that the earlier a person is exposed to alcohol, the more likely he/she will become an alcoholic.

Duh, but you claim there's one that proves the age is 21. Which is a lie.

Here's the UK one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/698013 3.stm

This study makes no claims as to your alleged "21 is the best age" claims.
It followed people from 16 till they were 30.

Bloody hell, look at the graphs and they show the chances going way the fuck down and plateauing at 20.

What graphs? The one on the UK one? There's no such graph there :O

Alcoholism harms productivity... don't ignore that link too.

We're talking bout the car breathalyzer thing, remember? You said it would be bas because it harmed productivity ( what? lol ).

Why do great countries with high productivity and GDP have high limit restrictions?

You mean like Europe? And what are you going to say when China passes the U.S. economy, should it ever do? Wow, look at them, greatest country in the world and no age limit for alcohol.
What a great argument,

Hey you, yeah you, 5 bucks to breathe in this for me? You have yourself a deal.

What the fuck, like would hobos mass around night clubs blowing in people's Breathalyzer thing? haha it's so funny you're just trying to make up this insane scenarios where somehow a guy could manage to bypass it by letting strangers and hobos lick his car and shit. GROSS.

You keep ignoring the data behind 21.

Which doesn't exist.

"Persons under age 21 may be on licensed premises, and can be sold and allowed to drink alcohol beverages, if they are with their parents, guardians, or spouses, as long as those persons are of legal age; but this is at the discretion of the licensee."

Yeah that's cool. I love it when I go to a bar with my parents and I get to drink because they order my drinks for me. Man that changes everything.

-Moral, alcohol is a drug and the most widely abused one at that.

Because it's the most widely produced.. duh?

Except you proved nothing unless you want to ban food altogether in bizarro world featuring poxpower.

No, see, chocolate is not nutritive. It's empty calories. We shouldn't lower the age to 18 don't you see?
Oh you just don't get it. -_-
I'm done with this, I guess you'll never understand the argument of freedom.

Well when you use an example and apply it at an analogy, both need to be relevant with each other.

You couldn't see a relevant analogy if it was shoved up your ass.

You saying that theres no reason to lower the limit of chocolate is just like you saying theres no reason to limit alcohol. You admit that theres no reason to lower it besides you thinking it's crazy and leads to more bans. You are the paranoid one here, my friend.

Yeah I am when people who think magic studies about the age of 21 exist try to use their moral views to impose laws on other people's private consumption of a beverage. Especially when these people don't seem to understand there's no arguments to lower ages of anything yet use that as their best argument and act like they're geniuses when it "proves them right".
Way to defend that status quo without ever asking questions. You're officially a tool.

But they aren't when coming up with laws.

hhhhhhhm yes. Unless you live in a muslim country or some shit. Or in like the 19th century.

Calories make you fat, sugar has calories. Chocolate (cocoa) is not sugar.

Cocoa isn't chocolate just like vanilla isn't vanilla ice cream.

Jet Skis kill people.

Like who?

Jet Ski owners and people who swim.

Cars don't kill people. People kill people.

You're right then, alcohol doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Thanks for the argument then. Oh? Wait? It doesn't apply because blalbalba.

By this logic, you will never comprehend the fine line issue.

Yeah resort to calling it a "fine line issue" when your ass has been handed to you on a plate.
"oh but for THIS ONE THING, it's different than for ALL THE OTHER THINGS". Yeah you keep telling yourself that.

+public outrage

You mean you and menstruating mothers?

+productivity

dear lord that's the stupidest argument I ever saw. Go live in North Korea if you want people to tell you how to live a productive life you tool.

What part of harming the economy

Brain... getting... mushy... Oh wait you mean the huge multi-billion dollar alcohol industry? Oh I think that's actually pretty good for the economy.

hich is what alcoholism does, and drunk driving accidents, which kill 15000 people a year don't you understand?

Yeah so? Cars kill 43 000 people a year. We'd be a lot safer with no cars and lots of alcohol than with no alcohol and lots of cars.

Sounds like you were jealous of people older than you when you were smallpox

I thought people who drank underage where usually dipshits. But hey I didn't have to wait till I was 21 to drink.

Why does Canada have an 18 drinking age? Why not 14?

Because when you're 18 here you're an adult and you can do whatever the fuck you want. And if you can drive at 16, you should be able to drink too and smoke while we're at it but I'm much rather raise the driving age to 18. Though I think they were talking about raising it to 17 a little while ago, maybe they passed that already.

At 5/14/08 01:58 AM, MattBlackguard wrote:

And exactly what evidence do you have to back up this claim?

your post history.

At 5/14/08 06:47 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Science is religion, poxpower. It's a set of principles that people follow. The only difference is it's dynamic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s cience
There's not one definition there that falls under "religion".

At 5/14/08 10:16 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

As for Christians who ALSO display open hostility should cool it and display love and forgiveness as their faith professes.

Yeah it would be great if they actually did turn the other cheek.
But no, they don't, because they're hypocritical douchebags.

At 5/14/08 12:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 5/14/08 08:03 AM, hippl5 wrote:
If you still think science is a religion, then what's not a religion?

That's my point sir.

you need to stop pretending you know the definition of words when you don't.

What if you can't pass?

At 5/14/08 01:06 AM, MattBlackguard wrote:

I wasn't talking about religion, I was talking about science.

Dear God...

Please stop trying to change the subject.

Oh my God.

I said yours was a belief; I never implied that it was dogmatic in any way whatsoever - although it very well could be with the very zeal you seem to be emanating.

Yay let's play "look at me, I'm a philosophy major! I used words for what I think they could mean, not what most people use it for! lol you GAYLORD! oops you assumed I was insulting you but "Gay Lord" is actually a compliment, see, you're a LORD and you're "Gay", or "HAPPY".

In closing: you're not very smart, sorry
:(
I could waste my time trying to explain to you why that is, but I'd rather waste my time making fun of you. HURRAY!

It seems I somehow struck a chord

Here we go, with this great egomaniacal assumption that you're this great genius poking at my poor mind, making me angry, toying with my feeble mind like the great master you are.

Anyways, do you have any actual arguments to bring to the table or are you just going to do like Jack and stay vague statements like "Anything is a belief" and "Reality is relative" like it was something that meant anything in the context of any discussion outside of a stoner circle?

At 5/14/08 12:08 AM, n64kid wrote:

But the right way is seeing it on our founding values with the framer's intent.

Since that is up to interpretation and is subject to misinterpretation with lack of proper historical training, it's a stupid and useless endeavor and I laugh every time I see someone lording DA CONSTITUSHION over our heads to promote X views.
Doing this is no better than having a religion. No set of laws are meant to be immovable, ever.

So religion says something, and science backed it up.

Religion is what lead to the prohibition in the states.
OOPS WRONG MOVE.
But if you think the muslim countries are right about this, go live there and see what happens when you try to sell alcohol to people.

Strangle yourself as I have brought up studies of Britain and other European countries too.

Which weren't the same one. I don't remember reading the study you're talking about that had a cut off at 21.
I'll go check again.
I assume this is what you're talking about here:
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/News Releases/earlydrinking.htm

The survey was done IN THE U.S., where, as I stated, if you drink before you're 21, you're breaking the law, and people who are prone to doing such things are usually the same kind of people who abuse drugs, work a shit job, drink a lot etc.
Furthermore, it says "9%" of people become alcoholics after they start consuming after they turn 21. But that is very misleading because that is the legal age, so you would expect that it's the age that most people start drinking, hence just skewing the numbers WAY down since most people won't ever become alcoholics.

No idea where your "international survey showing 21 to be the best age" thing came from.

And productivity

Don't see how this will harm productivity. 5 seconds, blow into the thing, zoop, you're gone.

and mistrust. I trust people of age won't drink and drive for the most part. I don't trust people not drinking and driving if the law was lower.

Welcome to bullshit land. I don't trust any religious person to make laws, but you know what? I don't have a say on that. I don't trust 99% of people with a gun, but you know what? I don't have a say on that.
And you know what? Your paranoia isn't something we should base ourselves to make laws on.

In-car breath test devices are a compromise that I'm against because they're costly, ineffective, and too easy to get around.

40$ extra bucks on a car? cheap.
There's no way to cheat one if you're drunk. 100% effective. Sweet.
Easy to get around? How? You'd need a non-drunk person to blow into it for you before going for a drunk drive. Who the fuck would do that for you?

Wow SOUNDS GREAT!
Still haven't given us any actual good arguments against those stupid bullshit things.

And it takes mistrust to an EXTREME level.

Getting closer. But again a worthless judgment call. I think the 21 age is EXTREME mistrust. Is that an argument to you? If you won't take it as an argument for lowering the drinking age, don't use it for this thing.

That proof? Nope. Still not proof.

Fact: eating more food makes you gain weight.
I win.

However, it does not apply in the case you are trying to make.

And here we go again with the "oh see no, it works but NOT THIS TIME, for like THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR like. yeah".
Oh yeah all fables are great, but not the ones with lions on them. Lions? Please.

You seem to support this in some form in EVERY SINGLE ONE of you posts.

To support what? YOu just said you're alright with a society where chocolate is legal from 21+
Sounds like you're crazy to me.

I find no problem with it because we have science, religion, culture and morality all supporting it.

Religion, culture and morality are irrelevant, for one.
As for science, again, chocolate makes you fat.
Bacon makes you fat.
Jet Skis kill people.
Cars kill people.

You can't prove scientifically that more Jet Skis will result in lower deaths and accidents, so by this logic, you'd have to support the ban of Jet Skis.
I'm sorry, but you have to concede this. There is no reason, not a SINGLE one to want Jet Skis, other than to have the freedom to ride them.

And I'm having a ridiculous time getting you to learn these fine linings we have between what's acceptable and what isn't.

I can't argue chocolate not being banned because the reasons you give aren't serious.

To me, your alcohol reasons are retarded.
Get it yet?
You think you have these SUPER-GREAT reasons. "oh look at this, alcohol is bad for you, it makes you walk funny and when you drink enough you die, oh no, let's ban it". What a load of stupid bullshit. Let people do whatever the fuck they want as long as they leave you alone. All you're doing is telling every kid on the globe: HOLY SHIT, THIS DRINK MAKES YOU AN ADULT, SUCK ON IT KIDS! Completely bypassing responsible information and the promotion of the enjoyment of it, you coax kids into going behind people's back to try it and use it not to enjoy it for it's taste or nuance or history but just to get fucked up.

It's not about "oh, how bad is alcohol, oh, how many drunk drivers before we ban alcohol" it's about me doing whatever the fuck I want in my house, with my body.

You, or anyone else, has no business telling ANYONE ELSE what they can or can't eat. What you CAN do is inform people. You can buy airtime. Make a website. Whatever you want, but don't barge into people's lives taking away their rights to things, however retarded those things may be.

At 5/14/08 12:29 AM, MattBlackguard wrote:

Because science is always right, despite the fact that it's varying theories are continually being changed, revised, and updated.

Religion has never once been more right than science about anything ever other than by sheer and ludicrous coincidence, and even then it was about historic records and not actual theories.

Your "non-belief" is a belief.

In no way is the disbelief in the supernatural a religion or a belief system, anyone who thinks it is has probably been brainwashed by some religious dipshit or has just never thought about it more than 10 seconds.

At 5/13/08 11:21 PM, n64kid wrote:

Second amendment, people can bitch but nothing will get done.

Wow basing laws on an ancient constitution. Great plan. Nothing ever changes in 300 years!

You don't get that theres a fine line between what's acceptable and what is not.

You're not the one to decide it and realize that the USA are the only people on earth who decided that the line is 21 for some reason when everyone else picked a different age or just banned alcohol altogether ( based on stupid religion bullshit, as usual ).

So right now culture says AGE=21.

Based on what signs again? Oh right the law says it. Welcome to the same circular logic loop as Proteas fell into.

The chances of developing alcohol drastically decreases and moderates at around 20 in most cases.

First off, I don't remember.
Second off, if the study was done in the U.S., the 21 age is dubious since anyone who drinks before that is a lawbreaker by nature, and lawbreakers are known to do stupid shit and ruin their lives, so you still have that problem.

Why should I state the obvious?

WHY IS IT BAD? Say it. It will save people. As far as I can gather, your ONLY argument against 18-20 people drinking is that lives would be saved.

How come you always take the topic at hand and then swap it for something else?

Because you don't get it otherwise. Well you don't get it straight either. So. Trying different angles here.

You never proved chocolate makes people fat

Chocolate doesn't make you unfat.
So, again, more chocolate is always a negative. We should shield people from it.

Because you haven't proved why many people are overweight because of it.

God damn is it that complicated to understand analogies here? You don't see the parallels at all with alcohol and this, do you?
All you do is find the couple differences and writer it out.
"What? A fable? Fables are stupid cause we're not animals, so the morals don't apply to humans cause it's animals in the stories".

I know, keep it banned till 21.

Well if that's the society you want to live in. Good job.

But it's not relevant. Why should I disprove the evidence of something that you make analogous with what I'm trying to get you to do? But then in reality, what you use is never analogous, not ever.

I'm trying to show you there are no arguments to give back freedom to people. Ever. There is 0 reason for anyone over 21 to legalize anything recreational that is banned for people under 21. None. Zero. Yet the argument you use is exactly that: Oh hey you can't tell me why we should lower it, so it should stay.
Don't you get it yet?

100% of anyone over 21 or who doesn't drink or want to drink has no interest letting people 18-20 drink. But it's not their fucking business because we should live in a FREE COUNTRY.
Either way of the spectrum, you and Proteas don't get it.
I say "chocolate" OH WHAT NO CHOCOLATE IS NOT AS BAD AS ALCOHOL LIKE NO
I say "women vote "OH NO WOMEN VOTE IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT OH NO.

I'm having a hard-ass time getting you to understand this :O

At 5/13/08 09:43 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:

Wow, you really are a douche bag.

Haha already getting angry at the things you don't understand?

Now how the fuck do you even think you're right?

Scientists say I am.
Do you have any beliefs that go against science? Then you're probably wrong.

I have no religion. That's not a belief. It's a non-belief.

At 5/13/08 10:14 PM, LCurtis wrote: @pox:
Are you also for the legalization of all drugs

Sure

and firearms?

I never really understood the personal benefits of owning a gun other than shot at OTHER people or animals. But still, I guess.

How about owning nuclear weapons?

I have no idea what you'll do with a nuke other than kill countless people.
Nukes have no self-defense capabilities. All you could ever do with a nuke is hurt other people.

I'm for personal freedom. Your body, do what you want. As soon as someone else comes into the equation, then it's in the law's hands.

so why do you care?

I'm bored

At 5/13/08 07:57 PM, n64kid wrote:

There are other methods that get real results without doing what you say.

Probably, but it's not the ones in that study.

Except everything you list isn't an issue.

Guns aren't an issue?

No one cares about chainsaw deaths. Guns are misused when illegally purchased or when combined with alcohol.

Or when a kid blows his face off. Or when a neighbor shoots another neighbor. Again you don't get it anyways. I could enumerate about 500 of these things that have varying degrees of people caring, you'd reply to all of them without understanding the point.

Theres a fine line between what's culturally accepted that you seem to always ignore.

What's "culturally accepted' is not a valid argument for anything as culture changes every decade and is easily shaped by the media. The story of creation is culturally accepted.

Except studies show 21 isn't arbitrary for alcohol.

Ok I seriously don't remember reading that in your links. Where does this come from?

SADD, students against drunk driving wants it too.

But you didn't reply: why is it bad?
CAn't you even realize it's a bad idea? If you can't realize it's a bad idea, I don't see how you can be arguing about alcohol regulations :o

What the fuck do you think you do every damn time?

I'm trying to show you that you could do this with anything even if alcohol didn't exist. Stop trying to put alcohol in the equation.

Uh oh tryptophan is in chocolate. What does this protein mean? It means it releases serotonin which is an anti-depressant and can prevent skitzo, mania and other abnormalities.

Right but you forget that people are obese and obesity kills. We can get the benefits of these chemicals with many other foods. Removing chocolate has no effects.
BAN STAYS.

I know someone who eats chocolate constantly and is an underweight, as well a fine athlete.

Yeah BECAUSE HE RUNS. Still you don't answer that MANY PEOPLE ARE OVERWEIGHT BECAUSE OF IT. I don't see any benefits whatsoever in lowering the age back to 18. It's been proven that people from 18-21 have less self-control than people from 21+ and studies have shown that people who eat chocolate in a young age are known to eat a lot of it later on in life.
Man chocolate is a menace.

Not when you bring up something that doesn't compare to alcohol, no.

YOu still don't understand that the principle has nothing to do with alcohol, don't you?
I'm saying like "I can't disprove the evidence of Thor, why don't you try disproving the evidence of Aphrodite" and you're saying "What? Aphrodite? What does that have to do with Thor?".

NO GET

At 5/13/08 06:50 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 5/13/08 06:46 PM, poxpower wrote: I'm a devout Amish.

And I'm a unicorn with wings and I can poo eggs.

I've seen those.
We sometimes hunt them in the old Amish country. I like to tazer them and then load them on my truck.