obfuscator

Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic. And they say the religious are closed-minded. Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one. How on earth am I swaying from the point? Certain people like wep and rainbows actually bothered to reply to my post and point out their objections. All you're doing is making blanket statements with no attempt to actually debate.

I believe the self-propagating malware is what's yet to exist for macs (even on windows they are rarer then they were). I'd personally recommend an antivirus for any computer, but it may not be strictly necessary.

I just wonder who they'll get to replace him...

The important thing is that the story is a fictional supposition which is additionally simply not true on an overall statistical basis - guns improve safety more then they harm it. Statistically speaking, having a pool in the back yard is 9 times more dangerous then a gun on the nightstand. Statistically speaking, a pool has a purpose other than killing. Also statistically speaking, a pool also can't be stolen by someone who wishes to use it for ill.

That's because anything is better than Clash of the Titans. It could be worse. They could be subjected to The Last Airbender. oh god, they may as well watch teeth. Teeth was a great movie. Dunno what you're talking about :rolleyes: Kim outa nowhere!

Our morals do not come from teachings. Our morals are naturally instilled with us when our DNA is put together. Most morals derive from the instinct to survive, either for the population or just for oneself. Morals are not genetic, that's the biggest garbage I've heard today. If morals were genetic, we'd be predestined to either be moral or immoral people. Genetics can influence behavioral tendencies but nothing more. @ring world: I do agree that morality is often relative...yet some societies see nothing wrong with murder, or cannibalism, for instance? Does that make it morally acceptable, just because that society doesn't feel it's shameful to do so? Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic. And they say the religious are closed-minded.

But the important thing is that he is an idiot, so he deserved the loss of his son, right?

It's not at all irrelevant because stepping away from the teachings of religion in this area (and towards atheism) leads to what I mentioned. It doesn't matter if it's not necessarily the intent of atheism, it's still a consequence. Have you ever considered the possibility that people actually agree with the morality imposed by religion? But were you to be religious, you wouldn't support those things, because the set of morals you adhere to would be more strictly defined. Such is my point. A person's morality can stem from many things, as you said. But I do wonder, why bother having morals at all if this life is really all there is? I have morals because I believe I'm on earth for a reason. It doesn't mean I'd drop everything at will, but I'd certainly question why I would put others ahead of myself and not just take what I wanted if this life is really all there is. You see, society tells us to constantly put others ahead of ourselves (sometimes) as it's good for society. But if you don't believe in life after this, why should you, or would you possibly want to detract from your "happiness" so that others can be happy?

Al Qaeda has attacked Russia in the past to similar effect.

Kulemin will be playing tonight apparently. I got rid of my facebook ages ago because it annoyed me so much but I've found twitter isn't nearly as bad - I don't tweet myself and generally only follow people with something interesting to say so most of the petty drama is nonexistent.

Exactly - and religious people do many things that are bad, and it isn't because of religion. (however much many atheists may wish to claim that). I've no preconceptions about atheism as a system of belief - of course the individual atheist may have different morals relative to sex, but it is impossible to deny that many prominent atheists rail against the teachings of religion on sex, and it becomes a draw to those beliefs. It is also further obvious that many people consider themselves "free" once they stop following a religion, and thus doing many things is now permissible. Let me ask you a personal question. Do you beleive sex before marriage is acceptable? Do you believe contraception and abortion are acceptable? Do you believe gay marriage is acceptable? I suppose you probably do. In fact, I can't recall ever meeting or hearing of an atheist who didn't(although I'm sure there are exceptions, and as a matter of fact Christopher Hitchens has flip-flopped over the abortion issue for quite some time). At their core atheism or theism are very simple beliefs. However, they quickly dictate how you chose to live your life and as such often affect every facet of it. Atheism has absolutely everything to do with moral views, not nothing.

At very least, this tells me you've never bothered to attempt the obtaining of at least a relatively unbiased look at both sides, for if you had the flaws of atheism would be well apparent. I'm sure you'll forgive me for not particularly wanting to write a book on the subject (which in reality is what's required to make a full examination of either angle of the subject) but I'll sum up a few inherent flaws with atheism. Atheism vs. the church on sex. Atheists like to use the thought of "unbridled sexual experience" as a draw towards losing the "shackles" imposed by the church (and religion as a whole). They like to paint a picture of a world where our sexual desires transcend all else and restrictions on such would be nonexistent. They say that the current attitude of the church is fruitless and old fashioned, and unnecessarily restrictive. They say "we should try the atheist way". Mary Eberstadt says it better than I ever could. .... Well I'm in class and I've no desire or time to write further but if you're looking for any genuine arguments against atheism I'd look at the following books. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592767877/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0VP4J3G9PXAN2ABJGWX7&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072603/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=06J7V21WWNZD4S1PA1K1&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 http://www.amazon.com/Loser-Letters-Mary-Eberstadt/dp/1586174312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295977865&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295977879&sr=1-1 And of course, this is interesting: http://pewforum.org/Belief-in-God/Can-Civilization-Survive-Without-God-.aspx

Sure, it might force criminals to go through a couple more loops, but I think it's commonsense that a lot of them inevitably *will* obtain guns some way or another (smuggling). A ban on guns would be a catalyst to a flourishing smuggling scene, which is a huge problem within itself. So maybe guns would require extra steps to obtain, but this would also mean that there will be more crime circumventing the situation because those extra steps would cause whole new problems. Did I mention that these underground smuggling crooks would be fully armed? Yes, in Canada I do routinely find myself beset by gangs of gun runners. Just the other day they broke into my house toting surface to air missiles, drank all my beer, and crapped in my sink.

That's true, but it does help identify what ISN'T the right answer. So if I were to point out some of the many flaws with atheism you'd agree that it too isn't the right answer? But could you? Are you actually attempting to claim atheism is a perfect belief system? :wall: I'll take that as a concession, then? If you'd like me to write an essay detailing the many flaws of atheism, I'll do it..but I'm simply offering you the opportunity to back down from that shockingly arrogant and narrow minded statement first.

That's true, but it does help identify what ISN'T the right answer. So if I were to point out some of the many flaws with atheism you'd agree that it too isn't the right answer? But could you? Are you actually attempting to claim atheism is a perfect belief system?

That's true, but it does help identify what ISN'T the right answer. So if I were to point out some of the many flaws with atheism you'd agree that it too isn't the right answer?

Are we attacking the White House today? Or was it next week? I'm so forgetful. :roll: Not until Prime Minister Putin sends us the message. He needs us to time it so there can't be any nuclear response. Sorry to be this guy, but Putin isn't the Prime Minister anymore, haha. The head of office is just his puppet. Putin is currently the prime minister of Russia. They also have a president (dmitri mendevev) who is currently "in power". For all intents and purposes it's still putin in power, however...and whenever the next presidential election is (may be this year) we can assume Putin will run again and win.

I just follow people on twitter so they all say there. Now all the debate's whether that was a sucker punch ...it wasn't. Eager on Armstrong was a sucker punch. Taking off your gloves after you've already been punched twice in the face? Well, maybe he could have been more restrained, but I don't exactly feel sorry for Kulemin.

There are many ways - it really depends what your goal is eventually. What do you want to be able to do?

Must not be present in the bbcode. Should be pretty easily fixed I think...

Can you imagine true death? Not existing anymore in any way shape or form? If so, does that scare you? I mean even non practicing christians believe in heaven and hell for the most part, true death is too scary for people to imagine, in that sense it is a comfort blanket whether you think of that intentionally or it just acts as one for you I certainly can imagine true death...it was difficult to imagine but once I started experiencing lucid dreams the idea of "halting" my existence became something I could understand. Does it scare me? I suppose...but not any more than the idea of eternal life scares me (either in heaven or hell). I believe in God because I believe God exists - not because he makes me feel better about myself.

I don't think people would really be content to hold onto religion merely as some sort of "comfort blanket" if that's what you're suggesting.

Congrats man, well deserved :D Will they actually use that on their site now? If so, link the site once they adopt it.

Well then, of course, we get into the debate of what religion is vs. what it can be. In fact, if anyone's read Hitchen's book, God is Not great, that's basically one of his main points - that religion is often used for ill and in many ways the world would be better off without it. However, the fatal flaw in his logic is that without exception, the examples used by him(and many atheists) are those that only serve to show the moral authority of the church has been corrupted to the advantage of someone who can gain from it. Unfortunately, that corruption has sometimes been from the church itself, and sometimes even at the highest level. It doesn't mean the church is inherently bad. And @Latios: It's hardly fair to expect someone to engage in a civilized debate with you when you refuse to even read the material they're attempting to use to prove their point ;)

Let's test that. [hide] [/hide] EDIT: Yup, same problem (Chrome 9). Not sure how we got the theme but perhaps there's an update for it...