Lateralus

Without sounding arrogant, the book is called 1984, and I would hardly call it fantasy.

:lol: :lol: You're a terrible, terrible poster.

Can't go wrong with Alice in Wonderland or Fantasia.

This is maths, not philosophy. The pencil touches the floor, but it goes through a theoretically infinite number of points before it does so.

Do you actually read these religion threads? The people who know what they're talking about generally don't argue about whether or not there is a God, because of what you just said. However your point is much more of a defense of deism than theism, and in a debate about theology there's much more possible give and take than an argument about the existence of a deity. The lack of an opposing theory doesn't give an existing one strength. There could be any number of supposed explanations for the start of the universe, but the unfalsifiability of them is not to their credit.

Photographic memory would certainly be nice.

I was going to say Cary Grant. Have you seen Only Angels Have Wings? I caught it on TV a few months ago and loved it.

So you'd never call someone righteous or decadent? If there was no measure of morality we'd have no libertines.

I'd rather be embarrassed about something I earned than be proud of something I didn't. (Sounds like that Kurt Cobain quote.) But hey that's just me. You can wave your American flag around if you want. I have no problem with that. I just don't think that kind of pride is the right one for me. I'd rather save my arrogance for myself. You missed my point. I said earlier in the thread that I thought patriotism and nationalism are more or less silly. Like Ginger Warrior I appreciate (and love) British and Scottish culture, and I love what the Union Jack stands for, but I don't recognise the superiority of my country over others just because it's "my country". I only quoted you earlier because I thought you shared my views, in which case it would be odd for you to be ashamed.

The thing is, it was not a legit victory. That's the whole point. Also, I didn't use the team as a representation of America. The team = me as an individual American. You don't seem to have grasped my analogy. I'm just saying that I'm getting more than I earned, and everyone else can see that, therefore it is quite embarrassing. And... if you really want to start on that argument, Americans aren't perfect. Our ancestors might have done a lot to help us, but what about all the times they screwed over others? Why should I be proud to have slave-master ancestors? Why should I be proud about having ancestors who kicked Native Americans off their own land? Analogies aside, the fact is that if you think being proud of your country is silly, then it's silly to be ashamed or embarrassed about your country of birth.

It's just human nature I suppose. If you take a group of people and randomly divide them into two groups, say, red and blue, then the blues will think they're better than the reds and vice versa.

What kind of conversation/debate would that be? The interesting thing about talking to people isn't hearing their views, it's having them explained. Anyway, in this case it's easy to poke holes in an anti-gay persons argument.

No, the Bible says that saved people who die go to heaven, and unsaved people go to hell (second to last chapter in Revelation, I think, among many other passages). I'm not sure about Psalm 37 but I think you're taking it out of context. Definitely taken out of context. Earth will not exists for eternity. If it doesn't, that makes eternal life on earth impossible. I think the confusion arises because if I remember correctly, there's not much mention of heaven or hell in the old testament (Psalms). Most of what Christians understand about the afterlife comes the new testament.

What do you find to be morally wrong about it? If you're not happy with someone you should be allowed to leave. My dad left when I was pretty young, but I don't think he's immoral for doing so.

The point is that science is completely separate from morality. Science does not tell you to kill people. The science or critical thinking behind Eugenics says that if you don't allow people with hereditary diseases to breed, you will encounter less people with the disease, or that if you kill all the Jews, then there will be no more Jews. It doesn't say anything about whether or not you should do it. Science tells me that if I put arsenic in your drink that you'll die, but this isn't justification for doing it. Trying to blame the holocaust deaths on science is like trying to blame science for the deaths at Hiroshima.

From the wiki page on Eugenics: Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. I don't particularly have a problem with these things as long as they're not mandatory, most of them are even good ideas. I don't see anything wrong with praising these things, and like you said, the scientific community did not praise Hitler's interpretation of them.

I would argue that science can't be perverted, and eugenics is more of philosophy or school of thought. The Crusades were approved of by the church, which is the governing body of the religion. You might feel it was a perversion of how you view Christianity, as I'm sure at least some people did at the time, but if the church sanctions it, you can criticise the religion for it.

Hitler was religious, and to 'survival of the fittest' is life's 'thinking'. Linking Darwin and Eugenics is not really fair. On that note, linking modern Christianity to the Crusades is not fair. But it has been done time and time again on these forums. Crusades were a result of Christian ideology. You can't blame science or Darwin for Eugenics because there's nothing morally wrong with natural selection because it's just information. Eugenics and social Darwinism are bastardisations of correct science, and have always been seen as such by all but a select few.

Hitler was religious, and 'survival of the fittest' is life's 'thinking'. Linking Darwin and Eugenics is not really fair.

Argumentum ad populum. The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with it being true or not.

You really are an idiot.

I would quite like to be Bernard from Black Books.

I think you're probably the only person on this forum ever to mention Francis Collins, and I've seen you do it 3 or 4 times. :P It's worth mentioning that he was an atheist at one point. His conversion is quite a famous story. Something silly like he fell to his knees and accepted Jesus as his savior because he saw a waterfall frozen into 3 segments. Seems odd to me that a scientist would even correlate those two things.

Transubstantiation is silly.

I've actually only seen one EP of 12oz Mouse, I should really look for more of it sometime. They need to be watched in order. I think they actually released a DVD where all the episodes are merged into a sort of movie.