Ginger_Warrior

Thank you. I recognised science is a more solid basis to explore the world from ages ago. It has a defined method to it that can always be examined closely by other scientists, and above all else, it's objective. I've never been religious, nor have I ever believed in God. I don't believe there is a God. I don't believe Jesus was the Son of the God and I certainly don't think he was crucified to rid the world of sin. As far as I'm concerned, religion is the opium of the masses, and I'm an Atheist existentialist. When I die, I'm not having any of that "going to heaven" stuff at my funeral. I'm merely stating facts: I can't say there is no God. There is no proof of that either. I certainly doubt a few people on Tip.It are gonna post conclusive evidence that will somehow do what thousands of philosophers have failed to do over several thousand years - prove God doesn't exist. Much as I'm an Atheist who refuses to believe God exists, simplifying God down to the philosophical nature of the Tooth Fairy is just insulting.

Who the Hell signs up to a 5 year contract without even trying it out first? :lol:

It's not so much that they're idiots, it's that they've nothing particularly interesting to talk about. I've just always related more with girls than guys. Go out and find some girlfriends you get along really well with then. You'll become more secure about the situation then.

Does that mean I can use Yanmas to obliterate you with speed? And remember, Bug > Psychic. ;) (I still have all those type-ups remembered off-by-heart)

That makes wonderful sense. There's a shortage of doctors everywhere in the developed world (except Cuba, ironically enough), and you would take away all the licences of those who agree to do abortions, and destroy their careers, on the grounds that it's immoral. You're a genius! =D>

You're a sucker for punishment, aren't you? : The 21st century called. It would like you to stop drinking the 19th century European Kool-Aid. *Ahem* The European Union in a conglomerate of 27 (I think it's 27. Not totally sure) countries versus just the U.S., has about a population of approximately 190M more people than the U.S. yet only has a GDP of about $17T USD versus the U.S.'s $13T. Fyi, that's not very good considering it's a mass of 27 countries. Hell, the standard of living in Europe is about half that of the U.S. (England is somewhere in the middle of the U.S. and the E.U.). You wouldn't dare compare any single European country to the U.S., or even Japan or China, for that matter, for the simple fact that Europe has been in a steady decline since the end of WWII. The continent's "superpowers" (France, Germany and, to a lesser extent, Italy) have seen prolonged periods of economic stagnation followed by a continuous period of declining economic growth over the past 30'ish odd years. But, hey, aside from the rapidly aging population, a decreasing working percentage of the population, a rapidly declining overall population, stagnating economies in terms of growth when compared to the rest of the world-- Especially South America, Africa and Southeast Asia-- Everything's A-OK :thumbsup: Firstly, an ageing population is actually a sign of a good quality of life, as it indicates people are generally more healthy and have a higher life expectancy. Secondly, the bolded parts. Have you got any empirical evidence for any of those claims? The UK for one has had economic growth for the past fourteen years. This quarter was the first in which economic growth stagnated for a while, thanks partly to a boom in the US, but also due to the fact more people are in work now than at any other time in our history, contrary to your claim the size of our workforce is decreasing. If you really want to compare unemployment figures, go ahead and compare the UK with the US. They're really not that far apart. The part in italics just made me laugh. It shows what you know of world history if you think Italy was a world superpower before WWII, or France for that matter. The only country which has lost superpower status due to the Second World War was the British Empire, which had to effectively be sold off to finance British participation in the War in conjunction with the Lend Lease Act. Since then, no European country has been a superpower. The underlined part, well, I really have no clue what you're talking about. "Growth compared to other nations"? Growth is growth. The reason those areas are developing more rapidly is because they've got a lower base to start from. It's hardly rocket science. I'm really not interested in an argument about the US vs. the EU. I'm hardly a supporter of the EU either. But please stop referring to anything in Europe when your knowledge is quite clearly lacking. For one, returning to the original point, the majority of Europeans are still religious (most Christian, like the US).

Exactly. I've no problem with people saying "I don't believe in God", because that's a personal opinion that doesn't need justifying to anyone else but you. The same applies to those who believe in God too. Hell, I'll even go as far to say I wish there was a higher being. I just don't personally believe there is one. It's when people go about saying, "God does exist", or "God definitely does not exist" that I have a problem. There is no 100% reliable, conclusive evidence for either of those two claims.

I think that depends. The fact of the matter is (if we're talking about the UK system, I'm not sure exactly how it works in the US, Canada or Australia) you need to be doing homework at secondary school to keep up with the wide variety of lessons you're doing. At college though, I think that's different. Homework should be optional at that point. If I can die for my country at the age most people go to college then I should be able to decide what I do with my free time, homework included. College as it is is a joke. They still baby you around like they did in secondary school. That's why people need to learn about independent learning, so people feel inspired to study by themselves and do the work asked of them, rather than shoving the work down their throat and giving them a little green report card if they don't do the work. Children are maturing too fast these days, and even though the work is easy, there's way too much pressure for young people to do well academically. I think it's got to the point where tutors give homework for the sake of giving homework just so they look like they're doing something, and that just strangles even more time away from young people who need some sort of time in which to mature properly. In short: college just needs to be a more mature place.

Nah. I mean, America does rule the world on this matter. It's not like it was someone from the UK that invented the Internet, or computers or anything useful like that... It's not like the LHC experiment is happening on the Swiss-Franc border... It's not like France has the best rated healthcare system in the world... It's not like some European countries have gotten over giggling at the word "sex" by the time their children grow up to be 11... It's not like the EU combined is the biggest economy in the world in GDP terms according to the IMF... You're right. Europe really is a backward place to be. I have no idea why I didn't realise that until you pointed it out.

I'm sorry, did you just imply bad mothers are generally from the poorer in society? Because if so your snobbery just crossed the line.

I won't be signing up for the tourney, for four reasons which I have hidden for epic suspense. [hide=1)]I haven't got a copy of Brawl[/hide][hide=2)]Even if I did, I've not played it in about a month[/hide][hide=3)]I promised not to enter any tourneys, being un-American[/hide][hide=4)]I think a league table would be a better structure. It's less binding, and the n00bs have something to aim for (I love you all really)[/hide]

And how, exactly, am I a hypocrite for believing flat out that god does not exist? (i.e. "strong atheism") Aww... when you say strong atheism you make it sound so manly... Because as much as saying "God exists" is an assertion, so too is the statement "God does not exist". Both statements imply there is no chance of the opposite being true, and thus, both imply there is proof to back themselves up. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe God exists either. I'm just not going as far to say there is no God without any proof. That makes me as bad as them. Saying "There is no proof of God's existence" is not a positive assertion.

[bleep], bring back the "Caught them..." thread if this is the alternative. :|

Seriously, Ray, arguing with SW is like arguing with God. You'll just never win.

But if God has as much control over nature as some would like to make out, it's not accidental at all, is it? You can't say humans have responsibility as stewards over the world to prevent abortions, and then say God wilfully neglects to enact his own rules. That simply does not make any sense.

Now I has the 2000th post. Not that I've contributed much to this thread. :P Saru, then those Atheists are hypocrites. The whole point Atheism is that giving a conclusion (that God exists) without facts, or giving a conclusion and then making implicit references to the world around us is a cack-handed way of justifying something, and runs counter to the scientific method. Established, verifiable facts should be used to make a conclusion in that order. That's the problem I personally have with religion. The conclusion that God exists has been made with no evidence, and there's been no evidence since the Bible publication that I would define as evidence. That's not denial, that's logic. That and the other problem: the scientific method only works with objectivity. Much of the reasoning given for the existence of God over the past few pages has been purely subjective.

Oh God, tell me about it. Union is one of the worst sports to watch. -.- If it's any consolation, it means our game at grass roots level is now all but dead except in St. Helens, Wigan and Leeds, which means we end up doing as well against NZ and Aus in internationals as we are right now. :P I think Ireland are playing better than England, if they get past Fiji.

Where is the Atheists' proof you speak of? I think the point most are making here is that we cannot prove nor disprove God's existence because people like you claim he's immaterial and thus cannot have any proof. As you said, READ the posts people write on both sides.

You don't know how good it is, living in a time zone 10 hours behind yours, to wake up on a Sunday morning and watch a good NRL game first thing. Your game's just a good 5mph faster than ours. So yeah, Rugby League. I don't think there's ever a dull RL game, and there's always something happening.

If by the bolded part you mean the undeniable fact that the Earth is indeed flat then yes, Christians can firmly say they see the world as it truly is. The problem with the second paragraph is this: Few atheists will ever call religion a mental illness. Such persecution is in the minds of only religious believers themselves. What the atheist merely asks is this: If you make the assertion that God exists, and you expect me to drop my belief that there is no God(s), all I ask for is some sort of evidence to go with your point to prove the validity of your argument. It's the fundamental basic structure to an argument. Over half the world simply being religious doesn't prove God's existence. "Voices" I cannot personally verify doesn't either. Claiming that God is immaterial and thus cannot be proved doesn't prove His existence. Furthermore, I can turn your "evidence for a negative assertion" format on its head. Christians are monotheistic. Sly, for some strange reason, decided to cite Hindus as having experienced God's voice. Lenticular also decided to cite Buddhism. There is a problem with this: Buddha is not comparable to the Christian God (just talk to any Buddhist), and Hindus believe in many Gods, not just the One. One of the main doctrines of the Bible is this: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". Therefore, if an Atheist is required in the context of this debate to disprove the existence of God, surely the same obligation has to be made to the Christian, who believes possibly all but one of the many deities in Hinduism are false deities, to disprove the existence of those other deities. When Sly actually starts doing that, maybe the Atheists here will actually start too.

There must be some sort of advice available? They'll fight your corner. From the sounds of it though, you really haven't got a leg to stand on, unless you can somehow prove the late fees are unfair. :|

No, he's calling people who make their own rules up, then when their rules are found to be false, bend them idiots. As you quite rightly said, "Reading skills ftl". My reading skills are just fine. Perhaps you should re-read over what he said? The word Christianity wasn't in his original post, yet you perceived it as an attack on your religion. Maybe I'm not really the one that needs to re-read what I'm saying? You're infuriatingly bad at answering questions given to or proving to us the assertions you make, or answering to the contradictory evidence in the Bible. I'm through arguing with you here.

No. The spider walking across the floor next to me seems to be bound by gravity as well. It's not just us humans. It doesn't seem that obliged to go to Church though. Ain't that wierd?

No, he's calling people who make their own rules up, then when their rules are found to be false, bend them idiots. As you quite rightly said, "Reading skills ftl".

That's probably because America has never, nor never will be, part of the Commonwealth. ;)