obfuscator

How is it that you're certain that your understanding of the bible is more correct than any other? This is what I mean by relying too heavily on the written Word. I never said my understanding of the bible had anything to do it. My understanding of catholic theology (taught to me, by the way, by a parent with a masters degree in the subject) quite clearly shows that this action is immoral. (the shunning or vilification of a homosexual).

I'm not using books as an argument for the existence of God. I'm saying that the topic is complex enough that one must read a book in order to fully understand it. If you had any desire to be neutral and objective I'm sure you'd be willing to read books by theist authors. However, you've repeatedly expressed your desire to the contrary, which is why I don't think you've any desire to be persuaded whatsoever. And before you ask - yes, I read books written by atheists. I've read God Is not Great, snippets of "letter to a christian world", "the God delusion", and others. I plan to buy the God Delusion once I finish reading the material on my to do list. http://forum.tip.it/topic/285390-religion/page__view__findpost__p__4711423 Stuff like "this post is ridiculous" and "this is creationist babble" , "go back to school and pay attention in biology class" are ad hominem arguments. So is your "anyone can write a book" argument. If there's something wrong with what the book says - prove it. Don't mindlessly discredit the author. I'm not talking about it failing. I'm talking about the enforced genocide of anyone who had the slightest inkling to be religious. I have better things to do then quote chapters of history books but basically, the atheism of communist Russia ended up with the most brutal dictatorship in the existence of mankind, and ultimately also led to its failure as a society. This book explains it quite well, if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297809199&sr=8-1 I've never used the state of the USSR as proof of existence of a God. I do use it to show why atheism may not be the best thing for the world, which is an argument in itself regardless of the existence of God. By the way, if you'd like me to read any sort of atheistic literature in an attempt to prove your point, I'll be glad to do so. As I've already said, I have several other books to read first but I'll certainly do so when I have the time.

I've never claimed the state of the USSR is proof for the existence of God. What it IS proof for is that atheism may not be the best thing for society.

No, I've stopped responding to you because of your incredible use of ad hominem and straw man arguments. What really did it for me is when you said you can't believe in God and be a real physicist. I've repeatedly linked you to books with relevant articles, and instead of bothering to refute them, you've made idiotic, irrelevant claims like "anyone can write a book".

We have rank contests from time to time. As for compromising admin information, I have this picture of rainy and cowman naked on vacation. [hide] [/hide]

Not sure why it's relevant - if morality does not come through this religion then the same questions still apply. Morality comes from shame? Does this mean that if I feel no shame something is not immoral? Do you think every criminal feels shame for what they do? I highly doubt it. Tribes of people having no concept of life after death? I'm curious to see your sourced example. Why doesn't an atheist go on a rampage? Precisely because they're afraid of the consequences put in place by man (even if they don't believe in the consequences made by God. The only evidence we have of atheist society quickly becomes an every man for themselves, murderous dictatorship. At any rate, follow the rules of debate you yourself posted on this very thread and I'll be glad to continue responding as long as I feel you're actually open to being persuaded and actually in search of objective opinions(which personally I've never really felt with you).

You can do it with any language really. You basically have to generate the url based on a specifc username. Jagex makes the lite hiscores available for this purpose: http://hiscore.runescape.com/index_lite.ws?player=USERNAME HERE. Replace the "username here" with whatever username you want to search for and then read in the data found on that page (split by commas).

And in some cases shun them. I'll counter your example with my own: my relatives in Indiana work with their church, and their church works closely with the community. A gay couple recently moved in the area and wished to attend their church, but given the church community's views of the bible, have since been prevented from attending their church after an Elders meeting decided that it was an affront to the Lord to have them worship in their church. Are they exactly working within the Christian belief? That's debatable. All these misinterpretations are what we deserve by relying too heavily on the written Word exactly. But that couple was shunned all the same and last I heard they're actually considering moving again because of this. Not all Christians are cut from the same cloth. Yet your example only furthers my point - these people clearly acted against the core beliefs of the church. Now, of course I can't speak for the various Christian religions, and really only for Catholicism specifically, but if we are all children of God then we must be accepted and treated as equals. This is a belief that is central to all Christian faiths per my understanding. In this way, that behavior is contrary to the very teachings of the church. Of course not all christians are cut from the same cloth, but if the beliefs are followed properly it is very hard to see ill being done from such.

RIP, always sucks to hear of another clan dying :(

Good job CSF :)

Well, it's not the only example, merely the best one. I personally think it states volumes, however, that every atheist society we've ever know (however few there have been) has turned out terribly. An interesting point that's been brought up is a rebuttal to Dawkin's and Hitchen's assertions that "Religion is child abuse". Child abuse, of course, is a terrible thing, and one that is illegal and punished appropriately. The implication of this comparison is that religious education to the young is something that is terrible and should be punished, which, oddly enough, is exactly what soviet Russia instituted under Stalin. In this way it's possible to argue that it's a logical conclusion that a truly atheist society cannot be free at all. Well, the public emphasis, of course, comes from the number of people who feel strongly about the issue. The morality question is an interesting one - I don't think anyone will deny that morals can come from religion. The question to the contrary is: Where else and how else do morals come from? When you follow a religion, of course, you follow a certain morality. Belief in God has certain logical consequences, such as behaving a certain way. If God exists, and he put us on this earth in an (obviously) temporary form, it stands to reason that our existence here as intelligent beings must be some sort of test or preparation. The "scare people into acting right or as a means to shun those who are different from them" is also interesting. You talk as if "scaring people into acting right" is such a terrible thing - yet society only functions by doing so. We scare people into not committing murder by punishing them with prison, or the death penalty. It is logical that immoral action (or illegal action) should have consequences, otherwise there is no desire to behave in a moral way. Religion, like any other powerful force or entity, can be used for bad or god. Religion (now I speak only of Christianity, as I am largely unfamiliar with the intricacies of other religions) preaches honest, love, caring and acceptance, for we are all children of God, created equally in his image. Therefore, when religion is used to condone immoral action, the fault lies not with religion itself, but with the manipulators and corruptors of it who attempt to use it as an excuse for immorality. Indeed, many of the typical atheist arguments against religion serve only to prove this point. Whenever immorality has occurred in the name of religion, it can quite clearly be shown that by the very moral doctrine of the religion used to commit immorality, eternal punishment would be rewarded. Of course, many of these arguments create a false representation of the actual events, but for example we could look at something often brought up: killing in the name of religion. A quote from an famous atheist (whose name I do not recall) goes something along these lines: "Getting a bad person to do bad deeds is easy. Getting a good person to do good deeds is easy. Getting a bad person to do good deeds is easy. Getting a good person to do bad deeds takes religion." It's a bit of straw man, because, in fact, any good, religious person who somehow finds religion to be a justification for immoral action either does not have a proper understanding of religious doctrine or has chosen to ignore part of it. For example, to be considered a martyr in Christianity, dying for your faith must occur. However, the morality of this action is instantly nullified if immoral action has been undertaken to achieve it - such as the murder of innocents. In this way, Christian morality has been ignored and broken, so that the church's doctrine would say that a person who would be a martyr for their faith would in fact go to hell for their sin. You speak also of the Christian stance towards homosexuality, which is commonly misunderstood. Christians do not preach hate, or the shunning, or murder, or anything else against homosexuals. Christians merely believe that homosexual activity is immoral. I'll provide a parallel. I believe that drug abuse is immoral. Perhaps you do as well, or I'm sure you know many people (non-religious) who share my views. Does this instantly mean that I am discriminating against them? Would you call me a bigot, or call me hateful? It's entirely possible to find an action immoral without any sort of negative behavior towards those who participate in it. "Hate the sin, not the sinner". At any rate, I apologize for the tangent.

Well, a 7th round pick (conditional) for voros. Not really an important trade, but if the leafs don't bother resigning him they keep the pick....don't know what anaheim really gains from this at all, unless it's a salary dump.

@faux agreed. Don't really like this deal, although I do agree that Versteeg wasn't meshing all that well. I'd have preferred a first, third and a prospect...I hope giguere goes as well but I don't see it being for two picks, much less two firsts. Interested to see what happens with kaberle, as always...

Hey, I'm not usually your biggest fan, but that's some really respectable behaviour. :thumbup: Yep. Sometimes you just have to stand up for something, good to hear it ended peacefully in this instance it least. Seconding the chain idea being rather ill thought out.

Well, there are a couple good points you brought up. I think that the intellectual who adheres to a religion (specifically) likely believes in the existence of a God, and chooses a specific religion based on whatever morality they can relate to best. For example, there are certain things about the bible that make a lot of sense - indeed I think almost everyone (atheists included) would agree that there are very many good lessons and morality imposed there. You compare the morality imposed by the Koran, the old testament, and the new (Islam, Judaism and Christianity respectively) - I consider those the three major religions, since Hinduism and Buddhism are quite different. To me, personally, no "holy book" is perfect - I don't believe I need to go into detail as I'm sure you're well aware of the flaws of each book, but I believe that out of the three, the new testament is the one which best sums up an ideal version of religion - with a loving, caring, and powerful God. Now, it's easy to point out inconsistencies with all of these holy books, but the belief is, at least, that they were in fact written by men, with divine inspiration - many different men, in fact. Most criticisms of the bible tend to be leveled at the old testament, as the new testament is an enlightenment of the old. It stands to reason that there will be some minor discrepancies and contradictions throughout. However, there are also certain things about the new testament that make it seem odd it was the work of manipulators, exaggerators or liars. My personal belief, as well, is that a religious (specifically Christan) society is a much more productive and moral one. A common example used is the minimal testing of atheist society and what it has thus far achieved, hence references to communist Russia. (It's interesting to note, however, that when this problem is brought up with atheists, they tend to me much more likely to sidestep the argument or present a straw man rather than actually debate it - see this gem. A good read on this topic (if you're interested, as I'd expect someone hoping to obtain an objective view of the subject to be) is Peter Hitchen's The Rage Against God: http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297742667&sr=8-1 There's a very extensive chapter on the danger's wrought by godless states and the pseudo-religious cults often replacing religion. Your definition of atheist appears to be that you aren't religious, but you don't necessarily believe there is no God. At the moment, personally, I'm not a practicing member of any religion - but I am a theist. I do believe God exists. There's a large difference between that and the specificity of a certain religion and the accompanying beliefs.

Feedback so far is that the leafs seem to be looking at a longer rebuild then they originally thought (basically trading beachemin for gardiner, and now this). Still, not impressed at all.... Oh well though, rather him than MacArthur. If they trade [bleep]ing macarthur I'm going to start cheering for Nashville. Another rumour is that the first + kaberle will go for a centre - which is fine as long as the centre is > 26.

Not a fan of that Versteeg trade at all...I'll wait for further analysis but at the moment it seems very one sided. The way philly's been playing, it might as well have been a second and a fourth instead of a first and a third...and any player who goes 29th first round needs at least a marlies year (or more, look at khadri) so that trade effectively set us back two years. Then again, if hanson is ready to play in the nhl, I guess that evens things out a bit. Sorry to hear Forsberg retired as well, but still...I guess it's in his best interest. Favourite swedish player besides sundin :(

Candian tire won't be as good a deal is play it again - can tire doesn't sell used and with goalie equipment used is often better than new anyways, just because it's broken in (not as many rebounds).

Harsh. I'm still waiting for a reply (unless I missed it) to what I posted a while back :(. Which post was this? If you repost I'll reply (iirc you're an athiest, and you're reasonable enough :P).

Congrats Jack :)

I play, but not goalie. I'd recommend play it again sports if you're not interested in craigslist. http://www.playitagainsports.com/

Oi! I take exception to that. I didn't count you seeing as I've debated with you like once :P

I'll buy a scratch ticket once every few months, never bought a lottery ticket. Been to a casino once, lost $20 and that's it. Nothing wrong with gambling as long as it's in moderation.

Don't bother CGF, the only athiest I've met on these forums who doesn't regularly break the rules of civilized debate is Meol. Why I've stopped replying ;)

I wouldn't say calgary has crumbled - they got off to a bad start but they've jumped to 8th from 14th and they're 8-0-2 in their last ten.