Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/7/05 01:45 AM, capn_g wrote:
I HATE that fucking movie. They're remaking it too.

I know >_< Hate Hollywood sometimes.

There not the ones actually on the field though (well they are technically but you know what I mean) and that was my point. They look good and they make for rousing crowd pleasing but that's ALL they do.

No. They DO influence the game. When the U of M cheerleaders get the ENTIRE Big House chanting GO BLUE! do you seriously believe that that has no effect on the players? 100,000+ people all of one voice. It may not be measurable, but there's a reason a lot of teams call their fans their 6th (or 12th for football) man.

Alas, physical limitations stopped my participation in sports from a relatively early age. It's probably why I've consistantly felt that sports should be played and not watched. Nothing drives me crackers like the idea of some fat shlubb who hasn't been able to run more than two yards without getting winded sitting in the stands and yelling "WE did it!" when his team wins. No chubby, THEY did it, you ate a hot dog.

That's really unfortunate. I'm sorry to hear that. And that is probably why you don't understand it. No disrespect... if you haven't been a part of it, it's hard to grasp the actual effect. I've had crowds carry me to school record times in track, to personal best points in basketball back in high school, and I've seen the crowds in college turn minor leads into blowouts. Never discount the crowd. There's a reason why almost every team in the nation, high school, college or proffessional has a lower win percentage on the road.

I mean brick and mortar, not just jip/sheetrock. I've destroyed my fair share of that (and not always intentionally ><)

Might be a little tougher... still think I could do it. You have to understand... I am supremely confident in my ability to overcome obstacles.

So wouldn't that mean that you are in fact agreeing that no one country can do it? Perhaps I should have been clearer. I never meant that it was beyond the scope of one country (the USA in particular) merely that no one country would do it because of the a+b points you just mentioned (and a few more besides).

Not so mouch that no one country CAN do it, only that no one WILL, without support from other governments. Our government has the power to take over the infrastructure of that entire continent and rebuild it. Granted, we'd have to draw in our military forces from current operations, but we could do it. Only those previous engagements and political backlash really hinder our doing so (and the fact that they have very little oil).

Like I said... isn't going to be easy... isn't impossible either.

At 7/7/05 12:51 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/7/05 12:30 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Thank you so much for equating me with Hitler and Stalin, I feel honoured to be in such historically infamous company.
Meantime you foster the idea that so long as there are cheerleaders, touchdowns WILL be scored. That's overt optimism at best, delusional at worst.

You don't even want to field a team. "Ohnoes, their guys are too big, we'll be slaughtered!"

Go watch the Bad News Bears or something. Watch the Pistons win the championship last year. Every other team had more talented people on their roster, bigger people, faster people, more powerful people (Our center's 6'9" for god's sake... there are GUARDS bigger than that on most teams). And we OWNED that tourney. Got one-upped this year, but so it goes.

You see, if it weren't for cheerleaders, many people wouldn't watch the game. Crowds wouldn't bolster their teams, some players might not even join the team. And every bit of influence that can be had to score touchdowns DOES help, even if it can't be measured. Have you played sports? Have you felt your team be carried by a crowd, led by cheerleaders (whether in uniform or out)?

You call me coward for not wanting to bother with an insurmountable task. Tell me something, do you think you can knock a house down by yourself? No tools, no jackhammers, no wrecking ball, just you. No? Why not? Don't you BELIEVE you can? Isn't that sufficient?
Here's a hint: NO.

Actually I do believe I could. With just my hands. The foundation might be tricky, but that's about it. Maybe it's my extensive knowledge of the trades, but it wouldn't even be all that hard. Probably help me get back in shape, too ^_^

ACTION, real action must be taken to solve these problems. No amount of latter-day hippies spreading "good vibes" will accomplish anything. Niether will simply throwing money at it and hoping it fixes itself.

Absolutely agreed.

No one country can do enough and no group of countries will be able to agree on the means and methods of assitance so the whole thing is POINTLESS (which is where I came in). You're yelling into the wind.

Here's where you're wrong. One country CAN do enough. Hell, the US if we put our mind to it, could reform that entire country into a superpower in less than 50 years. Look what we did to Japan. The only reason we don't is because a) we can't freaking decide on anything and b) other countries would get all uppity about us being bullies. All we really need is a little help and political pressure from other influential countries. it's not as difficult as you make it sound. I don't pretend it's going to be some easy walk in the park, but I don't believe it is insurmountable either.

We put people on the fucking MOON... manned missions to MARS are already planned. Don't you DARE tell me we can't fix a few third-world countries on our own planet.

At 7/6/05 10:37 PM, ---goodGOD--- wrote:

At 7/6/05 08:04 PM, Ravariel wrote: Of course it is. We call the electron a particle, because it's easier to explain it that way. It is a probability wave form, in actuality, not a "true" particle.

are you sure?
I know I've read that a couple times, but I still always understood that the probability cloud for electrons was just because we couldn't ever say exactly where it was :o
Like, in truth an electron would be a little concentration of energy I guess, or some little particle with a constantly determined position and speed in time, except we can't know both because of the uncertainty principle n' all.
But it would still be at a certain place at a certain time, due to outside influences probably, hence just making it another cog in the wheels of destiny and not a generator of random numbers.

something like that. Anyways that's how I understood it, tell me if I'm way off.

In a purely Newtonian-physics world, it makes perfect sense. But we're outside the realm of such things. Once we got into the realm of subatomic particles things change completely. Stuff happens that can't be perfectly predicted. We can narrow it down to X many possibilities, and the probability of each to happen, but we can never be certain. And if we, the observer cannot be certain, the universe cannot, either. (more on why that is in a bit)

yeah I read about that, but I didn't quite get it. I don't feel like reading more about these time spins and extra time dimensions, because it just doesn't make sense in my head since I don't get all the math for it :p

but yeah, I agree with the math, always. No quarrels there.

Freaky stuff, ain't it? I'm not entirely boned up ont he specifics either. but from what I hear, it solves the problem of time reversing it's flow when/if the "Big Crunch" ever came to pass. it also gets around the "Before the universe existed" bit that has stumped everyone and given theists so much firepower in these debates.

omg watch it I'll put you in the hall of fame

Ohnoes!

but not at the same time :o
If you have a wave, its represented through time, isn't it? So at one time the "up" part is true, and at another the "down" part is true, but not both at exactly the same time, no?

That's a possibility. I'm actually a little fuzzy on whether or not these wave forms are expressed through time. So it may, indeed be a back-and-forth kind of thing. But to me that makes less sense then both possibilities being present at the same time and one disappearing on observation. Feh, maybe I just explained it poorly and got us both confused.

but on separate planes of reality/separate universes.

yeah whatever :p
They make up a lot of theorytical stuff with those weird maths.
And in any case, its not useful for us to say "well it happens in another universe!". Who cares, we don't live there.

Told ya it sounded like some sci-fi shit. Not making it up... just relaying what I've read. The basic premise is that you can't have half of a wave. So basically in any probability situation, upon observation, it seems like oall probabilities but one dissapear, but in fact they DO happen, just else"where". This actually, upon further examination, kind of bolster your own position. Because if every probability actually happens then the universe actully IS 100% deterministic. Granted it requires infinite layers of alternate universes for the probabilities to exist in... but I can't really speak for the truth or lie about their existance.

what you're saying put simply: YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU CHECK.
there, now its all clear.

Basically, yeah. But it's even deeper than that. Observation determines reality. It's not just that we don't know what happens or can't know... it DOESN'T HAPPEN until observed.

you're slipping in the no-sense zone.
Is your current life worth living? And is there any proof that you are making every choice independatly of everything else?
We were probably meant to have this conversation from the beggining of time itself. So what though?

Maybe you're right. Maybe my choices don't actually exist, and I'm just following the path carved out by physics for me to travel. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it does me. Hell, I'd have probably argued your side of this debate just for shits and giggles had it been brought up a little differently (just because I like to debate and learn different perspectives), but I wouldn't have believed it. See the thing is, my problem with most religions is the fact that they preclude free will. Which is my exact problem with determinism. I can't prove my choices aren't just me being another cog in the machine, without any actual say. If it could be proven that I was, in fact, without actual choice... well, I'd probably be as belligerent as afflix and VCV and Tal and Lidov about ignoring that proof. Not proud of that, but it's probably true.

At 7/6/05 10:05 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/6/05 07:38 PM, Ravariel wrote: At least, when we try, even if we fail, we at least tried.

But failure is still failure. This isn't little league, nobody gives a shit about how hard you try in the real world. It's RESULTS, that's all anyone cares about and so far there aren't any, in fact the situation was arguably made worse by unintentionally funding those very same warlords.

Have you ever tried to do anything you weren't sure you could do?

Or is it just when the stakes are this big that you pussy out?

"Ohh no, it's too hard, let's not even try."

Fatalists are the greatest of cowards.

Yes it would but that's a big honking IF you've got there, and human history would tend to indicate the opposite outcome.

If we hadn't revolted, the USA would still be a part of Britain. Our odds were extremely long in that fight. We fought a more organized, better armed and better manned army, but still won. And there were probably people like you who boarded up their house and let oppressive regimes walk all over you, constantly putting the rebels down for trying to become free. That attitude only makes what we're trying to do harder. By believeing it won't work and spreading that message, you're HELPING an idea that you KNOW has a preferred outome to fail.

The least you can do to at least not hurt the ones who're sticking out their necks, is to keep your mouth shut and let them try and let them succeed or fail as they will. By helping them fail, you are helping the warlords in africa keep their people starving. You are helping genocidal maniacs stay in power. You are killing millions of innocent people.

At 7/6/05 07:53 PM, Tyrant_Doomhammer wrote:

At 7/6/05 07:38 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 7/6/05 06:51 PM, capn_g wrote:

[...]

Yeah, except that it isn't my fault they're poor nor is it my moral obligation to people who live on a totally different continant and bare no relation to me, therefore I shouldn't have to pay for it.

I'm afraid that not only IS it your fault, but it IS your moral responsibility and it DOES effect you.

The Earth is a lifeboat. Just because we sit on different sides of it doesn't mean that a leak on one side won't kill everyone on board.

I'll let you ponder that for a bit while I go find dinner. We'll see if you've come up with anything good when I return later.

At 7/6/05 07:11 PM, ---goodGOD--- wrote:

At 7/6/05 05:44 PM, Ravariel wrote:
Mathematically, there is no difference between the two.

that's not the question :o

Of course it is. We call the electron a particle, because it's easier to explain it that way. It is a probability wave form, in actuality, not a "true" particle.

Math is the language of the OS of the universe. What is mathematically true must, by definition be true... even if it seems absurd.

isn't just that we don't know exactly WHAT happens? Like when you divide something by "0"
doesn't mean its irational :o We just can't quite figure it out mathmaticaly, for now. ( and probably a while)

Square root of -1... technically irrational, but an enormous part of the math in interstellar and subatomic physics. Just because something is irrational doesn't make it any less real. Current theories propose another dimension of time, called Imaginary Time (misleading label, just like "irrational numbers"), that is at right angles to our observed time. Just because it seems illogical, doesn't mean it is. Just because we can't picture it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist (wow this sounds familiar XD... go me). Just because you or I don't understand something doesn't make it untrue.

It's not about not knowing, it's about not being ABLE to know.

Randomness must exist for there to be any "possibilities" at all.

maybe there aren't any possibilities :o

Perhaps not, but I believe there are. (zomg belief without proof, and against evidence zomg)

Think of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

I don't know what that is, but you can't prove anything on that level with a cat :o

Schroedinger's Cat is a thought experiment, based upon the quantum theory of how random factors influence the universe. Basically the setup is this:

There's a cat in a box, it was alive when it went in. Also inside the box are a vial of poison and a radioactive material that has exactly a 50% chance to decay and release a particle of radiation. if this happens, the vial of poison will open and kill the cat.

Mathematically, it is impossible to know which happened without observing the cat (opening the box). And because of such, it enters into a state of quantum flux (I can see the eye-glaze juice starting to form) where it becomes not just a cat, but an alive cat and a dead cat at the same time. This seems, obviously, kind of logically absurd... but it isn't. Think of a wave... then draw a line through it's median. All parts of the wave above the line indicate "live" cat, all parts underneath indicate "dead" cat. But it's all one wave... both alive and dead.

Until observation. Once the cat is observed, the wave-form breaks down and you get one or the other, alive or dead, depending on where on that wave you were at the time of observation.

An interesting corollary, is that, mathematically, you really can't have only half of a wave (you can in electronics, but that's a bit different). But by observing the cat as alive or dead, the other half of the wave "disappears". This can't actually happen, mathematically, so many mathematicians think that both options actually DO occur... but on separate planes of reality/separate universes. I know... sounds all Sci-Fi and shit, like some episode of Sliders (awful show) or something. But the math is real.

the outcome is able to be known without observation... and that is impossible (via another branch of the uncertainty principle).

why?

See above. Without observation, anything with multiple possible outcomes exists in a state of quantum flux until it is observed and breaks down to a single possibility.

There is a chance that the universe is completely deterministic. I don't believe it is. Even if it WAS proven to be deterministic, I'm sure I'd believe that self-awareness was able to break the determinism. Such is the depth of my belief in Free Will. One thing I will agree with theists about: life without free will isn't worth living.

At 7/6/05 06:51 PM, capn_g wrote:
That's a tad optimistic don't you think? This IS africa we're talking about. Over there it's more like "Teach a man to fish and at the end of each day some warlord and his gang of thugs will come along and steal his fish". Their problems are inherent and it will take more than good intentions or external revenues to solve them.

EXACTLY! We gave them all the fish we could... and warlords and guerillas stole it. Now if we can put enough pressure on governments to actually CHANGE how things are done, we'll be making progress. Millions of people starve so that a few can live like kings (hell, some of them ARE kings, technically). We need to teach the people how to do for themselves, not just throw money at them. We KNOW the money thing doesn't work. Now we're trying something different. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But until there's enough popular pressure on politicians to actually DO something, nothing will ever happen and the status quo will be upheld. That's what these concerts are trying to do... to MAKE it enough of an issue so that votes will be changed, and things might actually happen.

I'm a bit of a cynic myself. i don't pretend to think that if we ignore the problem it'll magically go away, nor do I hold the fantasy that if we just talk to them nice that everything'll be fine. But neither am I the kind of fatalist who sees every possible chance of improvement as pointless and futile. At least, when we try, even if we fail, we at least tried. And hey... if we succeed... well then, that'd just makes all the apathetics and fatalists look rather retarded now, wouldn't it?

Death of hope is the death of mankind.

At 7/6/05 10:54 AM, ---goodGOD--- wrote:

At 7/6/05 04:32 AM, Ravariel wrote:

They are clouds of probability.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that just mean WE can't know its precise location?

I always understood this to be that we can't measure those tiny particules precisely enough for them to appear to us like one solid little bit located at a certain place all the time. I never thought it means that the electron was just at a random place at all times.

Mathematically, there is no difference between the two.

In fact, the idea of INdeterminism to me is much more absurd than determinism on a total scale. Think about it. Why would there be random?? Its not because we can't tell where it is that its not at a precise place.

Of course it's absurd. But then again, so is particle physics. Rationality breaks down on the subatomic scale, just like it does when density becomes infinite. Randomness must exist for there to be any "possibilities" at all. Think of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. In a deterministic universe, the outcome is determined before the experiment is even run. Which means that with enough information about previous states, the outcome is able to be known without observation... and that is impossible (via another branch of the uncertainty principle).

At 7/6/05 04:36 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/6/05 04:25 AM, Ravariel wrote:
and Zenny and Gil

HAHAHA! That's AWESOME! You just made my night.

Glad I could entertain. Also glad someone knew the reference. ^_^

Prove me wrong. Not a huge complaint, or challenge, really, just a simple one. Like I said there AREN'T politicians who aren't completely obsessed with there own careers and agendas and who aren't paying anything but the minimum beyond lip service to any of these causes. It's always been this way and it'll always be this way, I've just accepted it. Call that apathy if you wish, I call it being realistic.

There's realism, and then there's fatalism. You're dropping solidly into the latter hole. Belief that change is impossible, so why should we even try. Realism sees that change, while difficult, IS possible. Your apathy basically says "It's too hard, so why should I bother." It is the paradigm of what is wrong with the developed countries of the world.

Thiunk of it this way: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life. We tried giving them fish... they ate for a day. Now we're trying to teach them how to fish... and you believe it's pointless.

At 7/6/05 04:24 AM, capn_g wrote: Wouldn't the fact that the patterns appear AT ALL be of significance though? Even if we can only see them retrospectively?

Of course.

However, just because patterns appear does not make an entire system deterministic. On the subatomic level, determinism is IMPOSSIBLE. Hell, electrons, while on an atom, aren't really even particles. They are clouds of probability. To think that true randomness on that level doesn't effect things on a macro-scale is absurd.

At 7/6/05 04:01 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/6/05 03:46 AM, Ravariel wrote:
So if you actually care, like you pretend you do, don't just sit there griping about how others aren't helping when you can't be bothered to get off the internet while sipping Coca-cola in your air-conditioned $400.00 a month apartment building. Get off your ass and make a difference. Vote into power someone who WILL give them the help.

A) I never said I cared. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I didn't give a shit.
B) What merry-go-round of a planet are you from? There are NO people like that in power on earth. Which kinda brings me allllll the way back to my point about live 8 being utterly pointless except as an opportunity for all us first-worlders to say "Wow, poverty sure does suck". Go us!

So basically your stance is: Well, since the people in power WILL never do this, why should we even bother to try?

Nevermind the people in power are, generally, put there by the people.

Anyway, that "you" in the first sentance was a general "you" not a specific one. Sorry if that was unclear.

So you don't give a shit, go you! Other's do, and maybe enough others that WILL elect into power someone who can and will do something. Apathy like yours is exactly the problem. Only because we "don't give a shit" is anyone in the world actually starving. The US alone makes enough food to feed the world (and we IMPORT something like 45% of our food, wtf?).

But no, we want people in power who will spend billions of dollars and pounds and Euros and Zenny and Gil to blow the smithereens out of stuff (or at least build a lot of stuff that COULD blow other stuff up) instead of put our wealth to where it can actually make a difference.

I guess if you don't care, then you'll make sure to elect an official who also doesn't care which will exacerbate the problem. And yet you make posts on an internet message boards lambasting those who DO care, and who are trying their damnedest to make a difference as though they were the biggest of fools.

You are, without a doubt, the WORST example of our society. I haven't been this disgusted with someone in a long goddamn time.

At 7/6/05 04:06 AM, capn_g wrote: Hold up. Chaos theory states that out of seemingly random gibberish, clearly defined patters appear and what's more, those patterns repeat at intervals of scale. Wouldn't that mean expanding Hiensenburg's uncertanty principle violates chaos theory?

Not necessarily. You are correct about that aspect of chaos theory. What it also states is that only with infinite information can any outcome be accurately predicted. Granted the theory gives us ways to approximate that information, but it can never actualy be perfectly accurate. Add that to Heisenburgs Uncertainty principle that infinite information is impossible, and we are left with what only SEEMS like a dterministic universe, but one that is, in actuality, not. Patterns appear, and they appear at regular intervals, but the patterns themselves cannot be predicted.

At 7/6/05 03:46 AM, mikemill123 wrote: I understand what your saying about living happier. But i just dont belive that we are in any postion to make that choice for them. Because life is unfair to them means we have the right to kill them. That is just as bad as going down the alleys and killing all the homeless people because they would be happier dead.

You might be surprised with how little that would bother me.

Basically you're telling me that a life of torture is better than death, merely because it is life. That I don't believe.

Now I also don't believe that every kid put up for adoption will have to go through hell. But the problem is, we have more kids than we have adoptive parents... so the chances are VERY good that a child put up for adoption will have to go through what I described. Until our system/society changes to a point where children put up for adoption DON'T have to go through what I describe, abortion will be necessary. Would I prefer it not to be necessary? Certainly. But until it isn't necessary, I'm all for it.

At 7/6/05 02:15 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/6/05 01:16 AM, -marzzbar- wrote: They didn't want money. They just wanted people to recognise the problem and for the people in power to do something about it.

"Hey Ed, the factory's on fire!"
"Holy crap! You're right Bill! I better tell the boss! HEY.... STEVE!"
"What's up, boys?"
"The factory, sir, it's on fire!"
"Thanks for pointing that out, fellas"
"No problem sir, glad to help"

And then the factory burns down. Moral of the story: Pointing out a problem does fuck all to resolve it.

The problem was, they already TRIED raising money. It didn't work. Either it made the problem worse (I'll explain in a bit) or the money/food never got to the people who it was supposed to be for. Usually guerillas or governments would nab the aid and use it for their own causes. And the poor stayed poor and the hungry stayed hungry.

Now, on the occasion that food DID reach the intended population, you know what happened? Population growth. All of a sudden, aid for 200 became aid for 300, and whups, there we go... aid's all gone now, and we're back to our original problem. And that problem is this:

They don't have the means to provide for themselves. They dont have the infrastructure, they don't have the education, they don't have the government.

The bands that perfomed at Live 8 and the people who set it up realized this. They realized that throwing money or food at the problem wasn't going to solve it. What the concert does, is raise awareness of the issue so that the people of the countries of the world make it an issue with their governments. Once it gets made an election-level issue... then governments around the world might think about actually DOING something that'll help these people. ANd by doing something, I mean actually HELPING them get the infrastructure they need to feed their countries. Give them the help to learn how to manage it and give them the aid to get them through the months and years of transition. Twenty bucks in a collection jar is far less noticible than a vote. THAT is what they're trying to raise... not money, VOTES.

So if you actually care, like you pretend you do, don't just sit there griping about how others aren't helping when you can't be bothered to get off the internet while sipping Coca-cola in your air-conditioned $400.00 a month apartment building. Get off your ass and make a difference. Vote into power someone who WILL give them the help.

And if you've got a better idea... fucking do it.

At 7/5/05 11:39 PM, mikemill123 wrote: So if you were given a little puppy and you didnt want it instead of donating it to someone that wants it, you would just take it too the back and shoot it huh?

So, if you got a puppy that you couldn't take care of (damn no-pet leases! D:<), you'd rather take it to an animal shelter where it can sit in a cage barely big enough for it to fit until some random stranger MIGHT walk by and adopt it, instead of asking the vet to euthanize it to possibly cut down on the overpopulation of pets needing to be adopted?

Look... analogies are all well and good, but they don't actually get to the core issue, which is an UNWANTED child. Be it through rape, through mishap or through stupidity, the child is unwanted. If put up for adoption, chances are VERY good that it'll instead live out it's life being bounced around foster homes and never actually adopted. Adoption past the age of 10 is EXTREMELY rare. Everyone wants the babies (for bonding purposes... and they're cuter), not the older kids. So basically, if the system isn't able to get them in a family in about 8-10 years, they have almost no hope of actually getting one.

That, if you ask me, is a shitty way to live. Would I prefer that abortions didn't have to happen and that every child of an unplanned pregnancy could find a happy and loving home? Sure. Do I believe that's possible? Not with the system today. And, in all honesty, I'd rather see abortions than homeless children on the street or bounced around abusive foster homes. To me, that is far more cruel than to end a life before it has even begun.

At 7/6/05 02:16 AM, krnchoe wrote:
No, you do not know that the earth was not created in 7 days, you do not knw where this light came from, and you don't even know if the Bible is literal. But let me ask you, who created the law of gravity, every grain of sand, life, the "Big Bang". it was just here?... Your justification for this atheisitic view is that it happened by chance... Chance is mathematics so it MUST be true..right? I assume other religions are false because I place my faith in what I have experienced within Christianity.

So... observational evidence is all just put there by God to test our faith, right? Pfft. Sure.

In response to your last statement: You do not know that, if you built a time machine maybe you'd know, maybe you'd see whether the decisions you made were dependent upon genetics. I still think your statements are much too extreme.

I, too, do not believe the universe is entirely deterministic. On the grand scale, I'm sure it is, but on the micro scale, I believe there is enough uncertainty to allow for actual unknown results. And I'm not just talking about Heisenburg-size uncertainty (subatomic particles), on a larger scale, I believe it works as well, using chaos theory. The basic concept being that, if reactions at a (sub)atomic level cannot be determined, that lack of determinism will spread throughout the entire system, allowing for enough uncertainty for determinism to be broken.

I haven't called Martyr on this point, because he's been arguing well and eloquently and I didn't want to undermine him, but now I feel the need to.

I'd like to believe that sentience surpasses instinct and determinism. I can't prove that it does, but I believe it. Otherwise, no creativity could exist. No new story could be written, no new music could be played. I think that self-awareness is the one thing that can truly break free of absolute determinism.

At 7/5/05 03:26 AM, Guitardude91304 wrote: wow you morons, you're turning this thread to just what the guy didn't want to. read the first post. so if you wanna start those stupid arguments start them in one of the many athiest posts that are already out there because that's not what this one's about. aparently this thread has been solved.

Welcome to the 23rd page of the topic... please enjoy your stay. Don't forget to read the archives as well, we have 22 pages of them for you to peruse.

At 7/4/05 09:10 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: How about this; no one can purchase or consume alcohol at any age (AKA prohibition)?

Been there, done that.

Didn't work the first time, why would it now?

Any drinking age is as good as another, really. Because regardless of what age you have to be, you will wish to seem older by drinking while younger than that age. There will ALWAYS be underage drinkers.

And I don't for a second believe that lowering the drinking age will cause more DUIs and the related automobile problems. If you're dumb enough to get behind the wheel after drinking, no age limitation on either is really going to make a difference. If an underaged person wants to drink, chances are that they will find a way.

What I believe we should do is what Germany does: Drinking age of 16, Driving age of 18. That way, people already know how to handle (or at least have the ability to learn how to) alcohol LONG bfore they get the chance to be unsupervised behind the wheel. This would drastically cut down on the number of teenage alcohol-related accidents (and not just because the pool of drivers is smaller).

So basically you want us to do your homework for you?

www.justfuckinggoogleit.com

At 7/1/05 02:03 PM, Maus wrote: Wow, are a bunch of people who will never have to carry a life inside them for nine months still arguing about this? AMAZING.

Because obviously this issue can ONLY be important if you have breasts and a vagina. >.>

At 7/1/05 02:37 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:
Yes, because they are blameless in God's eyes. Some people believe that we are born with the stain of sin already on our hearts, but I don't believe this is the case. Men are born with a sinful nature. To us, sinning comes naturally. But is that a reason to kill them before they have a chance to live? No. God had a plan for each and every one of us before the heavens and earth were even created. If that baby is conceived, even from the most awful of circumstances (for example, rape), He has a plan for that child. Whether the spirit will go to Heaven or not isn't the issue, and it would be completely unethical for a Christian to base his or her judgment based on that truth. And to be honest, it angers me to hear non-Christians using that argument to persuade Christians (I'm not finger-pointing, here) because it obviously wasn't a factor in their decision. It's a dirty way to persuade others to come to your (again, that's a general "you") way of thnking. Anyway, I do believe that the unborn baby's spirit goes straight to Heaven when it's killed, but I believe that if God allowed for the conception of that child, then that child was meant to be here.

So do you also believe that every taking of a "life" be it through abortion, murder, or other means is NOT in god's plan?

I'm sure it does anger you... I meant it to... I also meant it to challenge you. I want you to think about the repercussions of your beliefs. I want you to be angered that something you argue so vehemently against results in eternal bliss for the "unfortunate" soul. OF COURSE it angers you, it is putting your own beliefs in opposition to themselves.

At 7/1/05 07:43 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:
Logic does not, has not, and will never dictate reality.

Goddamn... your first exchange with this guy and you admit to believeing that which I've been trying to get you to admit for weeks. Maybe I need to change my tack...

VCV, i got a question for you. I already asked fenrus this, but I'm interested to hear another believer's view on the matter.

Do you believe that babys' souls go to heaven when they die? Be it through abortion, SIDS, or whatever.

At 6/28/05 06:22 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:
news hint logic isn't always right. logic was an invention by greek thinkers in the hellinistic ages. logic isn;t always right. six centuries ago it was logical that that the world was flat. three centuries ago it was logical that witches had specteres and signed the devils book. a century ago it was logical for your country to restrict voting from woman, blacks, asians, natiive americans ect ect.

You apparently don't actually know what logic really is. Logic IS always right. The only way logic can ever bring about a false conclusion is if it works with false information. It's simple algebra, for all intents and purposes. If A then B.

People thought the world was flat because they had poor information. The info was there to be had (eclipse shadows, sails being the last thing to disappear over the horizon, the inability to see across large bodies of water that they KNEW had land on the other side), they simply disregarded it. That doesn't mean logic doesn't work.

If you truly believe that logic really doesn't apply to the universe, then there's nothing more I can say.

At 6/28/05 09:54 AM, fenrus1989 wrote: martytr there is no proof tha god doesn't exist and there is no proof that god does exist. its all based on faith.

I invite you to read my posts on the previous page. I pretty much proved that the christian god cannot exist. The only chance that he does is if the universe not bound by logic.

You wish to continue to believe, go right ahead. But realize that your faith is in the impossible.

At 6/27/05 07:38 PM, Tal-con wrote:
It's not a cheap shot, it's a statement of religious fact.

Religions don't have "facts"... we've pretty much proven that to a T in this thread.

Will you please stick the the subject yourself? The topic was an example that maybe there's a God that only wants atheists to go to Heaven, I was giving examples as to how that could not be true.

Maybe you just mis-quoted on your reply, but the response you gave was to his point that belief through evidence is better than belief without it... then you came back with stuff about calling God a liar... it made absolutely no sense. Now that you've cleared up exactly what it was you actually MEANT to debate, it's a little more clear.

Can you explain why, are you just going to sit there, mocking me? Please explain why my metaphor is a bad one, and why this isn't a debate, instead of just restating your opinion on the matter.

I say: Belief through evidence is belief.

You say: Disbelief is calling god a liar.

I say: wtf, we're talking about belief here not disbelief, what are you talking about?

you say: Why are you mocking me?

Hmm, that makes sense, good thing no one ever said God was Atemporal, as in, outside of time. God could live with us day by day, not knowing what's going to happen next, but decides wisely on the matter anyway.

Sorry, but people have said that god was atemporal. Ever heard of the word "eternal". Ever heard of the argument that god couldn't have been created, because he never "began" he always was? Time is a feature of the universe he created. Therefore he MUST be atemporal (outside of time, eternal) because he existed "when" there was no time. Not only that, suggesting that god is BOUND by time (temporal) also suggests that he is NOT omnipotent, because he is bound, and is unable to do something (namely see the future).

God, BY DEFINITION, MUST be atemporal.

That's where faith comes in, my friend. Faith in religion, no matter what the religion, can only be decided on faith. You have faith that no God exists, but where is your evidence?

My evidence is logic, and it is irrefutable. You can chose to accept that or not, I don't care.

That's not true, The Bible clearly shows that God feels anger and gladness. Sure, that may not apply to your "new" God that only wants atheists to get into Heaven, but it's also common sense to know that deities are omniscient, and to not feel anger, happiness, sorrow, is a weakness, and deities have no weakness.

What? Holy contradiction, Batman! The Bible shows that God has emotions, and yet it is common sense to believe that god would NOT have these emotions because they are weaknesses which gods don't have? Make up your mind! It seems to me that you have a rather... unique... version of god. One that is not actually omnipotent or omniscient (temporal argument and the one you just made about emotions). Maybe you should take some time to ponder exactly what it is that you DO believe, because you're starting to make less and less sense as the thread goes on.

At 6/27/05 06:27 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:

At 6/27/05 06:25 PM, FAtmat666 wrote:

mate i would rather live in a world full of misery and pain to be alive than to get murdered prematurely. you see some parents actually care about thier children and want them to live so mayby the can expierence any joys of life.

You would rather be miserable than not? Odd.

And this isn't about caring about a child, it's about the ABILITY to care for it. Do you think any mother could truly care for a child born of rape? Or some teenager, with little to no sense of responsibility yet? Or even worse, a teenager (hell, even a grown woman) on her own, with no backup family support.

I'm not saying that it should be a form of birth control, and I'm certainly not saying that adoption isn't the better answer. What I'm saying is that it MUST be available for when those options... well, aren't actually options.

At 6/27/05 05:39 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:

actually in catholic dogma, the aborted fetus doesn't go into heaven at all but goes to limbo because the aborted fetus hasn' had the time to recieve the sacrement of the anointing of the sick or last rights and any other sacraments. And the fetus will never be able to get that because the doctors won't allow it to leave the room. they'll ship it up and send it off to get disected and manipulated by all sorts of scientist for stem cell.

That sucks...

Man, catholics are even more effed up than the rest of christianity.

I assume, though, that this is actually because technically the baby's sould has the stain of Original Sin, correct, not because of some ritual? Isn't that the reason for baptising infants, so that the Original Sin is wiped away, and the baby's soul can go on to heaven if it dies before it's first confession (or before it can actually be capable of sin)?

You'll have to excuse me, my knowledge of Catholic dogma is a bit limited :/

At 6/27/05 02:45 PM, Z17 wrote:

At 6/27/05 01:11 PM, Ravariel wrote: If you answered yes to either question, how can you think that a life of suffering and abuse would be in any way more appealing then heaven?

Let's about everyone! That way, everyone goes to heaven!

Would work for me...

If I believed in souls and heaven, that is.

At 6/26/05 06:05 AM, Wyrlum wrote:
You actually do not need to make the first two assumptions. Look at the following.

Assume: Free will exists.

Two outcomes are possible:
1. You will reply to this post.
2. You will not reply to this post.

Assume that you reply to this post. Then free will does not exist, since you can't choose not to reply to this post. Since this is a contradiction to free will, we are left with #2. However, in this case, we find that free will does also not exist since you'd have been able to use it to choose #1.

Even you believe this is bogus, so why do you bring it up? It is in no way similar to my argument. My argument is that you cannot choose a path not known by God, thus you really can't choose at all. The logical continuation of this (which I generally avoid, because this logic process alone is usually enough to make most peoples' head a-splode "zomg, all time is the same, no before and after, what??") is the fact that God built the entire universe, INCLUDING our choices. It's not that god didn't decide them for us, he DID. He created the paths we take, the choices we make and the results thereof. This MUST be true if he is omnisceint and atemporal. A book saying "no, we really do actually have free will" doesn't negate logic, unless logic, itself, does not apply to the universe.

I have chosen to reply to this post, but I could just have easily chosen not to. Hell, I almost did, until your response to pox, because I felt it was a pointless argument. But it seems now that people are drawn to it, so I wanted to set your logic straight.

Can I change the past? No. Can I change the future? No, because it hasn't happened yet, there's nothing to change. But I can DETERMINE the future by my choices. THAT is what free will is all about, the ability to determine the future. When the future is already determined, choice is irrelevant and free will cannot exist.