Ginger_Warrior

The concept of an omnipotent God seems like a logical fallacy to me. The idea that there's millions of people around the world who refuse to believe in His path, and he refuses to do anything to convince them He's there when He could literally do anything seems like total nonsense.

You're probably too nice. I've been told so, but I can't be a mean person unless I have a genuine reason to. Try and "act nasty". I don't mean try and be a stud around girls, but make witty friendly 'insults', if that makes any sense whatsoever. Always worked for me when I was trying to get a reaction out of someone. Usually that reaction was a smile. Most people like laughing at themselves.

Lol, I'm saying that because the bible doesnt categorically state that it is fallible, and with the definition of infallible taken to be, contains everything we need to know (from earlier in the thread), whether or not the bible is infallible, cant be something we need to know. Incidentally, you should feel free to see if changing the definition of infallible leads to different results EDIT : Couple of errors in the logic on the last two posts, just fixed I was actually replying to Sly. He seemed to be having his cake and eating it with his reply to your post. It's quite clear that you can't argue the Bible doesn't say it's infallible, and then proceed to argue in the same paragraph that it implies exactly the opposite.

Indeed. Let us compile a list of people who are up for grabs first, and then start claiming partners. Can a person be a member of more than one "duets", by the way?

Going back to the argument about capitalism, you're treading a fine line there. The reason so many of the developed nations are in debt is because we're finding out there isn't enough capital in the world for global capitalism to sustain itself.

...and making the Volksgemeinschaft, but I highly doubt Obama's on some insane mission to make a superior race in America of all places. :lol: Good, quite frankly. Let's get students into proper work and give them a taste of the real world. I like it.

What are you saying? The Bible says it's infallible, but at the same time, it doesn't? I'm utterly confused at your logic.

... or people could just open up and admit they love Pika? :anxious:

Yes!! I FCed Radio Song on Hard. That's so good, it's not even ranked on the leaderboard. :XD: I'm so bad at this game it's untrue.

Or, you could answer the question. Why would we prove your side of the argument? That's one [developmentally delayed]ed impression of arguing you have there.

Don't need to. Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God. You are correct. Now try and answer the point rather than dismissing any need to. [/hide] This is an entirely separate argument but, *shrugs*, as you will. What kind of "proof" will you accept? Yes, unfortunately proving something exists doesn't mean proving it's divine. I'm sorry if you were confused on that matter. You've still some way to go in proving Jesus was the Son of God. Well, tangible and objective proof would be nice, if any's available, please. Thanks in advance. :

Don't need to. Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God. You are correct. Now try and answer the point rather than dismissing any need to.

Ooo... Name-calling. The fool's way of letting you know he's wrong and he knows he's wrong. By the way, since you want to play the "There were only two responses" card, notice what my first two responses happen to be. There's what you quoted, and then there's a link which refutes the "Jesus didn't exist claim" (Although, I'd already refuted it earlier). Oops on your part, huh? :mrgreen: Well done. Much kudos. =D> Now prove he's the Son of God. You have 48 hours. Go!

Nothing like a proper vanilla dairy ice cream cone with a 99 flake and strawberry sauce on it. =P~

Oh, I do that in Animal Crossing. You can send "Notes in a bottle" out and then when you connect to Wi-Fi someone else gets it. I always write nice ones but for some reason I always get abusive ones back. :(

Hmm... you gotta remember it's not that your mom(I'm spending too much time talking to Americans) mum isn't "getting the joke" of life. She is, she just physically cannot be happy about it. Clinical depression is more than what people would normally call "being depressed".

Male or same-sex partners to mothers are entitled to paternity leave and pay, in the UK at least. (To both of you) Proposed/existing levels of paternity leave are very different in scale to current maternity leave, to the point where they're incomparable. As stated previously, I have no problem with pregnant women who are unable to work being properly supported, but this is a societal issue that should be paid for by governments, not businesses. Paternity leave in fact only makes this worse. Provision could be made in my suggested system for equal parental leave for both men and women. I agree so much in that this is a societal issue and the government should pay for it. The problem there though is that (in the UK) there's no more public spends available without increasing borrowing, and given the credit crunch and the expected increase in people claiming JSA as jobs disappear to cut costs, that's unlikely to happen in the current economic climate. Therefore, we'd have to increase taxes somewhere to pay for such a system and no government wants to increase taxes. Again, in the current economic climate, tax increases are unlikely unless they were going to some sort of public works scheme, and not welfare. So even if we did transfer responsibility to the state, it wouldn't take effect for years to come. As for the second point, I don't agree. Women should be entitled to more time off. Not only because the partner can still physically work in the weeks running up to the birth, but also because cases of PND are higher amongst mothers than the partner. As others have said, if you wanted to strive for equality there, you'd either be forcing women to work until they're ready to drop, or you'd be making companies give unjust time off for the partner. Neither of which is fair at all.

Nice idea, but it's too subjective. Then, you could also use that argument the other way round against the Tip.It Staff's privileges. Depends what side of the fence you're on. My only concern is for those who have been offered a place on the Tip.It staff and refused it. Being an ex-staff member, I get a mention on the main site and I can also put something in my signature, but they receive no mention whatsoever, even though they've shown the maturity to be regarded just as "Honoured" as any one on the Tip.It staff. People contributing to the forum by posting is also vital to Tip.It, especially since its strong sense of community is so important to its longevity. That said, I've been on plenty of forums which offer special privileges to "élite" members and they've been total hellholes. Full of ego-centrics who dismiss opinions for no reason other than "I'm bigger than you". I'd say grant all users the ability to make Polls, keep an option for mods to remove that privilege in case of abuse, grant no special privileges, and Tip.It's struck that balance just right.

Remind me, when was the last time a black man in Australia got to be PM? Aboriginals account for about 3% of the population of Australia. If you wanted to make yourself look like someone who scapegoats tiny sections of a society for your own hardship, well done. Note: That accusation is different to calling you a racist. Australia remains one of the most "whitest" places on Earth thanks partly due to the WAP, but also immigration. White Europeans, not blacks, account for the majority of your immigrants. It's just you make it out like it's a total cakewalk for them but reality doesn't seem to concur. You're just bitter because of the blacklash following the WAP, and how the government has so actively promoted multiculturalism in its wake. Even so, I'd rather be white than black in Australia. Britain too for that matter. No question about it.

Male or same-sex partners to mothers are entitled to paternity leave and pay, in the UK at least.

OK first, Muslims believe Jesus was a special person, just not the Son of God. Secondly, it is not a historian's job, even as an atheist, to deny Jesus existed. In fact, by that statement, I'm seriously wondering whether you even know what a historian's job actually is.

Humans that barely have any room to live in, can't produce enough food for themselves, can't dig up enough ferrous metal from the ground to supply their industry, and can't even cut enough timber to supply their economy? Yeah. Japan's secondary industry's fantastic. It has [bleep] all natural resources, though, and depends heavily on other countries for its survival.

I don't believe in turning a blind eye to the world's problems because the inherit structure of human society means there will be inequality of some sort, somewhere, always. All it takes for evil to win is for the good people to say nothing. It's very idealist, but it has a practical meaning. If you don't have feminists fighting for equal gender rights, men continue to dominate. It needs a juxtaposition. So yeah, I'm for equal rights. I'm not into thinking that certain jobs were meant for different genders (nursing for women, banking for guys...). What I'm into is believing certain character traits are meant for certain jobs, and that there tends to be a correlation between gender and traits. It's perfectly possible that a caring male can work as a nurse, and perform that role just as well as a female, and vice versa for a male-dominated occupation. I suppose you could call it "traitism" as opposed to feminism. As for the questions: Yes I'll stick up for girls and I have done. I tend to avoid all conflict, but if I'm hit, I will hit back in defence. Male or female, but I'd probably take more care over where I'm hitting them.

Japan has good resources? What resources would these be?

So what? We turn over, go to sleep, eat more food than we need, throw mountains of the stuff away each and every year and not care about how thousands in the third world will die every month because they're not being basic security. Is that your attitude on domestic policies? Oh look at that corruption in the government. Well, we could fight it, but it's always gonna be there so why honestly bother? If supermarkets stopped selling deliberately at a loss to get more people through their stores, if we paid farmers in the third world a fair amount for their produce, I'm not saying it would completely solve the problem, but it would help. Like or not, roll your eyes, whatever. The only food crisis here is due to capitalism.