obfuscator

Julia Roberts is awesome :D

True... Lol Kessel went last :D

Sorry, I meant I can't view the video object containing the live feed :P

Can't view the vid. Will be interesting to see what comes of it though, hopefully not too many people get hurt.

That's a good thing ;)

God isn't setting humanity up for failure. Just because some humans will fail doesn't mean all will. God didn't make the human race evil. He made the human race free - and gave us two choices. It isn't His fault some of us choose to be evil. God has never intervened on our behalf, as I've stated several times before that is contrary to the purpose of our existence, which is to take care of ourselves. Surely you realize it would be terribly hypocritical to say we had free will but then constantly intervene on our behalf? Please don't say free will? free will. This logic is so often used but is terribly flawed. I've said it before, and I'll repeat: Just because you know the outcome of an event doesn't mean you control that outcome. This is basic knowledge.

I have encountered this attitude, but it's definitely not just soccer. I'd definitely prefer to watch rugby over soccer as well, that's a man's game :D Loved playing when I was younger.....so much fun. My main argument with soccer is the diving....the fact that faking injury is openly encouraged to the point it's a genuine tactic is upsetting to me. I also find the sport to be fairly boring, I think the field is too large and there are too many people on it. I think it would be a much more interesting game if they played 8 on 8 and cut the field length down 20% - the individual players who are more skilled would be able to flourish more and it would be much more exciting. The reason it comes off as so many soccer fans saying "it's the greatest sport" is because it's by far the most accessible sport in the world. It can literally be played anywhere and with no equipment except a ball. Most sports require learning more complicated rules or buying equipment, or a specific climate...but soccer can be simple enough that it can be played by anybody.

Leveling going much faster now. I'm halfway to 3-4 game hours after 80. Epic.

I wish they'd do the "sticks in the middle" thing lol. Except with specific positions it would be hard to make it work....

Maybe it is nonexistent. Of course, but from a teachings standpoint that's why God doesn't intervene.

But if God was constantly going to prevent us from doing any wrong, this earth as a place of proving oneself would be nonexistent.

I'm sure some atheists idea of atheism is limited to that. I can say for certain many atheists have far more expansive ideas. If you've ever read Hitchens or Dawkins I'm sure you'll concede that point fairly easily. @Ring_world: The basic problem with that is that knowledge of what is going to happen does not mean you have control over it. If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will. If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective).

Absolutely agreed. However, it also doesn't mean that it didn't necessarily take a God to create it. I'm not claiming Christianity is inherently right with its views of how the world came to be. You choose to believe that the official scientific explanation that it randomly came from nowhere is more plausible. I choose to believe that the universe having a creator is more plausible. Neither can be definitively proven wrong, it's just personal choice. In this, of course, I leave aside many other relevant arguments, mainly "is the world better off with religion or without?". And this is where the two theories disagree. While we both agree there is no way we could prove the existance of a God, we have differing opinions about what to do with that. I disbelieve in a God until evidence is given to verify the existence of a God, and you have faith that there is a God out there. You are right it is a personal choice and there is no point in trying to argue this. I would say to your question at the bottom that there has never been a time when people werent religious. Ancient man ritually buried their dead, and people believed in placating gods and spirits before there was a belief in the afterlife. I would say under ideal conditions with no religion that would be one less thing for people to discriminate against, of course you could tell me right back that if everyone was following one religion the same result would be achieved. Nothing is perfect, nor will ever be perfect. Religion or not people have a sense of right and wrong - such as stealing, rape, and murder all being near universally seen as bad and there will always be people who do all those things. I think religion has its advantages for many people, I have seen people go from losers to hard working people when they accepted religion into their life, as well as people not being miserable about their lives being short. Among many other things of course, such as purpose and meaning. So while neither system is perfect I think a world with religion is better for people that need or want it in their lives Agreed. A big argument often used by atheists is that religion does bad in the world - and this is undeniable. It does a lot of bad. It doesn't only do bad though. I've personally seen and lived how religion has changed the lives of many people I know for the better, and as such I believe that regardless of the existence of God, religion can be a positive as well as negative force in the world. Personally, I feel religion does more good than bad...but I suppose that's subjective as well.

Thanks Mil!

Level 80. Time to see if I can ding 85 before my sub runs out (2 weeks)

That's the problem with the "half-ass" approach - it does nothing to restrict criminals but it does end up restricting responsible users like yourself. That's why firm, realistic controls are needed - because then they will restrict criminals. You're obviously a conscientious person who's well educated in the use of firearms and uses them responsibly, I'm sure. The bottom line is that not everyone is like that; and when firearms are so readily available, a lot of people who shouldn't have them get them, easily.

I agree that this is a deterrent, but if we separate into different categories then each category would have just a handful of clans, cutting down on variety.

Absolutely agreed. However, it also doesn't mean that it didn't necessarily take a God to create it. I'm not claiming Christianity is inherently right with its views of how the world came to be. You choose to believe that the official scientific explanation that it randomly came from nowhere is more plausible. I choose to believe that the universe having a creator is more plausible. Neither can be definitively proven wrong, it's just personal choice. In this, of course, I leave aside many other relevant arguments, mainly "is the world better off with religion or without?".

I would like to point out that while I havent commented on your points (until now I guess) they havent been very relevent to the "intellectual conversation" of disproving atheism that I thought you were having. The only way to disprove atheism which means the belief there can be no God, is to prove that there IS or at least could-be a God. There is no atheist doctrine to disprove, there is no need to discuss morality, all you need to do is state why there is a God, or at least why there could be a God (going further to say that it would be more logical for God to exist because "_____" rather then saying "WELL YOU CANT DISPROVE THERE IS ONE TROLLOLOLOLOLOL") Again I am not involved but if you want to get anywhere with an atheist you have to argue on their terms with logic. An atheist always argues on christians terms, often quoting bible verses that are contradictions, or other logical reasons why they would feel christianity doesnt have much of a base to it. Atheism isn't something you can "disprove". Nor is religion. I'm not and have not attempted to show that atheism is a completely baseless theory - I merely intented to point out that, like religion, it is not perfect. An atheist always argues on christian terms? That's quite the broad statement, particularly considering the fact that we've just seen an instance of an atheist posting basically an "I'm right, you're wrong and an idiot". There are many flaws with atheism - but as I've reiterated many times in order for this subject to be properly explored you really need to dedicate a book length to it. I linked to several well written pieces on atheism that show some of it's inherent flaws. I know your previous post wasn't directly relating to me but personally I've never claimed or even thought that I "know" God exists. I don't think it is anything that anyone "knows", or doesn't "know". It makes more sense to me that the world we live in have some kind of creative spark than it were just completely random.

I hate to spoil the party, but as much as I prefer java/php over C# + ASP there's no denying that for business they make sense and are not going anywhere.

Well, you completely forgot C# + ASP.NET...

Well, I've already done so, specifically on abortion and gay marriage threads. However, if you beleive in God, you likely follow some sort of religion. Almost all religions have some sort of restriction on what is sexually "moral". If you are not a member of a religion and do not believe in God it stands to reason that such moral restrictions will not come from religion at least. Find me an atheist who believes gay marriage, sex before marriage, and contraception are morally wrong, and I'll be fascinated to talk to them. Oddly enough, you've already disqualified yourself as such a candidate... I never said anything about humanism - and I am also quite aware that there are many atheist humanists. See my point above. It was structured like a joke, and I didn't find it funny. Indeed, some religious leaders and members have followed very immoral practices. I've yet to see you prove this is as a result of their religion. Indeed, I think atheists are just as likely to be immoral as religious are, if not more so. "Up to 5% have been involved in abuse." My point is that no matter how you swing it, 5% is not even close to being representative of the whole. That's identical to stereotyping ethnic groups as criminals because a minuscule percentile are. I also wonder what the percentage of the general public who've perpetrated sexual abuse is. Ok. And religion is "I do not believe a god or gods does not exist". It's a play on words. But I think I'm actually going to leave things here. You've shown time and time again despite the numerous chances I've given you that you've no interest whatsoever in debating like a mature adult, and I really have better things to do.

Oh yes? So you believe sex before marriage is immoral? You believe gay marriage is immoral? If, as you claim, you'd actually read any atheist literature you'd see that practically all of it condones releasing the "sexual shackles imposed by religion". Thus, an increased atheism releases such and the logical consequences are what I described. So you chose to take an example from the 1% of priests who are not successful with celibacy and ignore the 99% that are? Ok. I'm not trying to give atheism a doctrine at all. Atheism is simply one core belief - "God does not exist", just as religion is one core belief "God exists". I'm trying to show a logical connection between what happens when you believe something and when you don't.

And the personal attacks begin. Lovely. However, since you've at least made some half-hearted effort to actually say something rather than engage in mindless trolling I'll do you the favour of attempting to respond properly. Atheism is not a "belief system" like religion is belief system per se, it's more of a non-belief system. The point is not that atheists uniformly beleive that unbridled sexual experiences are the way to go, it's that this is often a logical step when the "restrictive controls" put in place by religion are taken away, as atheism does. Have you ever actually read any book or other literature written by an atheist? This is a consistent argument made by many leading atheist writers. Same point as above, although the answer is pretty obvious to me at this stage. This is so [developmentally delayed]ed that I seriously wonder if the author isn't actually a Chihuahua. When you don't have a counter-argument, personal attacks are the way to go, right. What part of it is [developmentally delayed]ed? Is pornography not everywhere? Even attempting to say this is false would show a level of ignorance I've yet to see on these forums. Are over the counter medicines for std's everywhere?(implying std's are increasingly prevalent in society)? Same as above. Is prostitution not also prevalent in western society? Are many of these people not drug added immigrants? Are most users of prostitutes not better off than the prostitutes themselves? Is the age of consent not getting lower? Are marriage and families not disappearing(high divorce rates, low birth rates)? This is a bad thing? It's a great thing that medication for a disease is readily available. The bad thing is that the diseases are now so prevalent that convenience stores carry medication for them. Where did I say you should blame athiests for the problems with the church? If you knew one iota of religious doctrine you'd realize that, hey, guess what? It's immoral to rape and molest children, or use prostitutes. Yep, basically those clergy members are going to hell because their actions directly contradict the teachings of the church. But of course, they (the small number it is) only rape children because they're catholic, right? And I'll ignore your last sentence.

I quite clearly made a post detailing one flaw and providing reading material that goes over others in great detail. Forgive me for not wanting to waste hours of my time restating what others have done far better than I, especially for someone who obviously has no interest in actually having an intellectual conversation.