BlueLancer

I couldn't agree more, the hypocrites that have the balls to call themselves the "council" of anything go to other countries and call christians, jews, etc. barbarians and enjoy free speech, then after a woman (who was making an innocent mistake) allegedly insults THEIR religion by naming a stuffed animal Muhammad, they call for her execution. I'm actually surprised the moderate people in Sudan didn't voice their outrage over this. It's a very poor nation though, and with the western media being very sensationalist, I don't think they'd even get much space on a newspaper, or airtime on TV to voice their opinions about how ridiculous the whole thing is.

Please, do show me a culture where two parents would not want their child to be born free, with the right to pursue happiness. You make it sound as if there is a hidden culture somewhere in the world, where people volunteer to be slaves and be miserable for all their lives. The UN declaration of human rights has been accepted by every single nation, regardless of culture, religion and ethnicity. They are the same basic premises as mentioned in the U.S. constitution. They (or the genetical mutation thereof, whichever is correct in this case, haven't looked into the genetics of a black swan) did exist, but mentioning a black, magenta or bright red swan in a debate is fiction until you have conclusive evidence of the thing's existence (such as live footage, or an actual black swan which is now known to exist). Technology and research has advanced massively since the 16th century, just about every inch of the Earth is now mapped. Most of the species yet to be discovered or named are small insects, mainly living in rainforests. You could argue all you want that researchers/scientists could find a pink-coloured elephant or a blue apple, until they do, using it in a logical debate is a fallacy. Of course it's not static, nobody was challenging that fact. If you brought me a real blue apple or showed me a credible study which proves their existence, I'd be forced (and compelled) to change my view. A black swan is a perfectly natural cell formation, just as a pink banana (which actually exists). A supposed God that has an independent mind and can create life and worlds out of nothing can't be explained by any scientific law. According to your logic, anything could exist until proven otherwise, which is a grossly naÃÆÃâÃâïve and unrealistic view. I couldn't think of a real world situation where your view could be challenged, so I welcome you to study the legal concept of Burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the person alleging the existence of an event, thing, person, etc., not on the person/people disputing the allegation.

No, I can't say the big bang happened. That's one theory amongst quite a few in science. However there is vastly more scientific evidence to the existence of the Big Bang, than to the existence of a God. In fact, there is no scientific evidence even hinting about the existence of supernatural elements. Until I (or you) have conclusive evidence, subjectively, the big bang did not occur. I just hold it as one of the most plausible theories for the creation of the universe, but I don't claim it to be true.

I was editing my post while you made a reply, I now made that acknowledgement. Still, you can't claim the existence of anything and claim it's possible until proven otherwise. Fortunately the legal system has for quite some time in western countries acknowledged this. You can't indict a person for an alleged crime until you can prove he is guilty. If you cannot prove it, subjectively, it did not happen. Of course, you might've been the only eyewitness while hundreds of other people said the crime, say murder, could've never been done by that person. That doesn't mean he didn't kill a person, the thing happened regardless of how many people deny it, but unless you can somehow prove it, your personal opinion without any evidence is meaningless in a court of law (or in this case, a debate).

Nope, I still don't understand what the constitution, or accepting what it holds as self-evident truth (basic human rights), has to do with God existing or not. Every moral human being regardless of nationality would agree their children deserve to be born equal and free. Also, no God has been observed to exist. Sure, I can write a made up story or claim the deity of Apples showed up in human form and demonstrated to me and a crowd of 2000 a blue apple. That's up to your faith to believe or not (and I'd find it quite disturbing if you believed it) Until it can be proven blue apples, light blue bananas, God, or King of toothfairies himself are in existance, they do not exist. Appealing to philosophy and the fact I did not personally inspect every apple and banana in existance is bogus science and it would not hold out in a real logic/rational debate. As in the swan example, naturally I'm willing to change my mind if you can show me a physical copy/existance of any of the above. Until then, they are products of imagination/speculation. That being said, I don't at all close out the possibility a God/other entity could had created the first atoms or set in motion time/particles.

So since everything else was irrelevant, I figured this is the point you're trying to make: I don't get it. Are you implying every american accepts that "God" gave those rights to all americans? That's not quite true, people accept those values brought to the US by the founding fathers, regardless of mentioning the "creator" or not, because they are proper values which, by logic and rationality, should belong to everyone even without a written manifest. Nothing that can't be proven to exist, can be used in an argument (see pink flying elephant fallacy). As far as logic goes, no supernatural elements are in existance. You can try to make all the philosophical points about it you want to, but from a logic viewpoint, something that cannot be proven to exist (i.e. a blue apple) does not exist, thus cannot be used as an argument ("I believe a blue apple exists, and you cannot disprove it") without being a logical fallacy.

Thank the heavens not *all* politicians think that way though, other nations have (and will) interfere in another country's affairs if the country becomes too barbaric or the laws too oppressing. People are in the first hand human beings, secondarily citizens of a nation. NATO had little to gain from spending millions to stop mindless murder and slaughtering in the Balkans/Kosovo in the 1990's, but public opinion in western countries demanded something was done about the situation. That, in my opinion, is the highest form of civilized culture. People protesting for the rights of other people they have never even met. Sadly, people in western countries aren't so adamant about their country interfering in Sudan or Somalia due to the different ethnic makeup of those countries. Idiotic but true. When western countries have massive profits to make, though, they'll spend even thousands of their own soldier's lives to secure a country such as Iraq to secure strategic oil sources...

Despite god existing or not, he didn't create me or any other people who are currently alive. My creator is my father/mother just like everyone else's... Not to mention, the constitution was written hundreds of years ago when it was almost necessary for a politician to at least 'express' signs of the faith even if not being religious. It could be just as well amended to be the following and not lose any of it's meaning: See? It doesn't matter "who" or "what" granted the people those unalienable rights. They exist because people agree they should. It's not like those rights and values came off the Bible. The Bible even supports slavery and unconditional female servitude to the husband, with scant regard to "individual rights"...

Sometimes I just don't know if people are joking or if they're seriously.. Slow :lol: But by all means, even if you hate reading other posts in the topic, at least read the topic title. The woman is from the UK, and she was in Sudan when this happened.

I'm assuming you're white.. Correct me if I'm wrong. In 2 weeks from now, a very large group of racist black/asian/middle-eastern people move in your neighbourhood. They chant anti-white phrases, they break stores owned by white people (which is exactly what's reversely happening to those people, by white perpetrators at the moment) Would you really think these people have the right to gather in public and endorse making your life hell if it was your family and yourself who were being discriminated against? I have first hand experience of what religious or nationalistic hatred does because people had the opportunity spread their sick, twisted ideas. A lot of my cousins, who were close to me and good friends of mine, died in the wars which raged in the Balkan in the 1990's or were butchered with knives or machetes. If you want to know the reason for those deaths, how about this: People who succesfully spread hateful propaganda for years, insisting they are becoming a minority in their own lands, eventually convincing tens of thousands of people to murder and pillage people of a different nationality. I just can't understand why the British can't see how important it is to stop mentally sick people from spreading their racist and xenophobic ideas. They are begging to repeat the events of Balkan, this time not against croats, serbs or bosnians, but against ethnic minorities in the UK.

People whose views don't aim for the hurting (or even murdering) of other people, have the job to censor people who do wish to murder people, damage their property and discriminate against others. In this case I can't see your logic at all. Are we also discriminating against people who we jail for robbing banks, assasinating politicians and evading taxes because they live in a "free" country? Hate crime is a crime just like the ones mentioned above. It's just verbal. Would you let the school bully speak at the semester's ending ceremony and declare "I think we should kick open the nerd's lockers and steal their stuff, and stick their heads into toilets" due to 'freedom of speech' if it has the risk of even a few people actually executing it? "Their own views" don't just die out. Look at neo-nazism, there are still tens of thousands of people in neo-nazi organisations due to freedom of speech (and sadly, at least in Russia, this number is GROWING instead of 'dying out'. These people often engage in physical hate crime and serve jail time). Why should their views be given any airtime over politicians and people who aim for the welfare of all people and the protection of everyone from harm?

I, on the contrary, am shocked to find out you think that's "not" a crime. Seems like the typical BNP voter to me. Why should anyone be allowed to further convince these people it's ok to attack people and insult them based on their skin color, etc. which they were born with and have no control over?

You can only play so much of a game with fat italian plumbers falling into pits and screaming 'whatsa this, mamma mia..!' before wanting to take your anger out on something... :lol: What's the fuss about this game? Wii isn't officially a "kids" console, nor is any other console. Even Gameboy had some pretty harsh games. As long as a game is entertaining, I don't see what's wrong with playing it. It's a game for a reason, it sets you in an unrealistic, possibly fantasy setting, or maybe a very brutal one, etc... There are many different game types, Manhunt just belongs to the more gruesome, darker ones. Some people find it fun though.

They have a right to an opinion that all the jews in the world should die as long as they don't execute their plans. Those people are twisted, but nonetheless have a right to their opinions. But if those people decide to voice their opinions publicly, even in European countries which are very liberal, voicing racist/genocidal/oppressing opinions in public can and will land you a jail sentence for hate crimes. If that sick person talking on TV has even the opportunity of making five people execute the plans he's talking about, the TV channel has failed and is an accomplice in murder. Would I have the right to terrorize your family on public television or a newspaper claiming "I'm taking every chance I got at killing your entire family one by one". That's not freedom of speech. Allowing that kind of a person to open his mouth in public is a threat to ordinary society. How can some brits actually vote for this racist filth? :? They keep inventing numbers as a justification for xenophobia?

I don't know why people assume extended freedom somehow automatically brutalizes the people within that country to support wars and turn against each other. Just recently in Europe, Montenegro split away from it's host country Serbia. (And Kosovo is doing the same as we speak, the central government at Belgrade is going nearly bankrupt if also the area of Vojvodina decides to declade independence) Are they declaring wars or crumbling into a civil war? They're just a group of people who voted to make their state an independent country. P.S: Even if states in the USA gained more power, it would still be in their best interests to at least have a president who represents all of the states, than 50 different presidents for each state.

That's a blatant misconception. In reality humans (including you and me) aren't so morally pure. We are animals. We can only "think twice" and care for others because we now live in civilized societies with an overflow of food/resources, no natural predators, etc... If you had a way to watch your ancestors lives 4000 years ago, it wouldn't be anything pretty to watch... It's the way nature is, but I'm willing to bet both your and my ancestors have a lot of blood on their hands, including that of numerous other human beings. Not that we should bear their burden, just saying we are just the same, only born in a more fortunate/developed world.

That's not logical or empirical evidence, the book of Job is not an authoritative text written by God, hence the statement "evil exists because God wants it to exist" is false. Job, as well as the Bible, are human works of literature. They are only "divine" in the minds of the people who follow that particular religion. While it's true time is just a measurement made by humans, it is an accurate one because it doesn't fail: Even if we didn't make up a system to measure time, it still would be there. What happened 300 trillion heartbeats ago? What was the world like 520 million full moons ago?

I have extensive scientific knowledge of the world and how it was created, but it's impossible to rationally determine how or when, for example, time has begun. Hence the resorting to cop-outs such as "it's not totally impossible God could exist" Time being cyclic is no different from time being linear, it would still require a beginning. How can something exist for an eternity, yet there has always (for an infinite amount of time) been a previous existence? I don't think of "God" as a cop-out, I think of it as one of the possible explanations, because concepts such as the 'beginning of time' cannot be explained within logical limitations or human understanding. Something that exists, must have been created somehow.. But how can something come out of nothing while having existed for an eternity? :? Eternity is a logical fallacy, because it doesn't have a beginning, ending or a creator, thus it shouldn't exist. How can time exist then?

That man was a man... Not afraid to live his life. I don't know why but that somehow reminds me of Maddox when he has his 'attitude' turned on.. :lol:

To the contrary, adults would more likely have a Wii, as it is aimed towards the casual gamer. The 360 is more for the hardcore gamers, and although the hardcore gamers of this generation are starting to become the adults, I would still say that adults with a game system are more likely to have a Wii. And cheating problems. I have both and couldn't agree more with the above... The Xbox360 is really just for hard-core gamers, not for the type of people who play once in a while or want to share the game with a visiting cousin who's merely a kid. I never even thought about getting a 360, but since I recieved it as a gift, what the heck.. I purchased a few games as well. Wii games are fun to play and exceptionally fun to play with your friends. :) 360 games are fun if you're alone and concentrated or find like-minded people online to play against with a huge level of competition (since relaxing in some FPS games just isn't possible)

I just wish more christians/muslims/etc. would be rational like you and stop using "beliefs" and "faith" as legit currency in a debate about religion. 'Believing' or 'having faith' in something being true, especially in a text, is a logical fallacy. If I post a news article here without a source, people would naturally question "is that really true". I can't reply "no, my friend Bob made it up, but I think it's true" can I? There is nothing wrong with having a religion. But using it as some sort of cloak which shields you from learning scientific facts and how the world really works/how humans became their current state is very strange considering the only proof you'd have is "I just believe God said so". You can have brains and still be religious like misterxman kindly demonstrated... Individuals make up a religion, that's why they are seen either in a good or bad light depending on the situation. 'Religion' isn't a fanclub where you either belong or don't. Religion is your choice of reading certain books, believing certain people and doing certain things your certain book advises you to do.

The idea of dictatorship itself is nothing negative if the person chosen has proper morals, values and respect for human life. You have been brainwashed if you automatically think dictatorship means oppression. There are quite a lot of tribal communities in Southern America and in some parts of Africa which live in dictatorship of a single male (or even female), and they are content with their lives. Even the Romans had a selective dictatorship. Unlike electing a representative "President", they would elect a dictator for a difficult period such as times of war, and let him have absolute power over state matters for 6 months at a time. This idea worked phenomenally at times and helped preserve the roman republic. A dictatorship not based on fear (but rather law and military control) can be very succesful and humane with the right leadership. Take a look at Singapore and look at where it has gone under a proper, un-official dictatorship under Lee Kuan Yew.

I don't think any intelligent person can deny that, seeing as how even Einstein himself couldn't come up with an explanation of how matter and the first atoms were born out of nothing. What religion itself fails in is telling people what to do, greedy people using it as a tool to oppress people or brutalize them into killing others, assuming people can communicate with him (or her, do we have any proof a supposed God would even be male?) If you use religion as something that gives meaning to your life, gives you morals and helps you bring up your children/treat other people better, more power to you... If you use it to judge others, point out how blasphemous everyone else is that disagrees with your religion, use it to make people afraid and scared... Frankly, you'll probably be in for a big disappointment should you ever meet your "creator".. Or would he be proud of you putting other people down and insulting their beliefs?

Not at this point... The french were starving to death and giving the majority of their crops to the nobles and the king, on the expense of their children's lives. That's when it went too far. If the government gets too arrogant and rude on your expense? Absolutely... It's this simple: If the government is tyrannic and acts wrong in the eyes of the public, it must be replaced. Unless you support the idea the US should still be a faction of colonies belonging to the British and paying absurd taxes overseas while staying in poverty. The Bush administration already thought up this concept a year ago for Iraq (finally an idea with some intelligence). While minorities weren't well off under Saddam, at least he had so strong power he could keep the country in peace and economic prosperity.

I don't see how that's a valid argument. Especially in industrialized western nations with a large christian community (excluding the US), evolution and religion go hand-in-hand. The existence of a God does not automatically exclude the fact evolution happened. But yeah, if you take it literally and think a God actually created people out of mud and men's ribs, you may have troubles teaching your children science and evolution...