mmmcannibalism

:lol: I wonder if he walked off a cliff :shock:

[hide=] Way to have a terrible understanding of American history. You are forgetting that almost all of america was badly racist and very few wanted racial equality. The fact that Lincoln preserved the United states and helped set the groundwork for the 13th-15th amendmants is more then enough to earn him a legendary place in history. No, he did not crusade against slavery but he considered it morally wrong. For a time he coudl not be openly anti slavery because it would fracture the country even further, To Lincoln preserving the nation was the most important thing and prevent the spread of slavery was second. As the war went on anti slavery opinions became popular enough that Lincoln decided a bold move against slavery would be the best move to help the country long term. Though the Us had some serious racial trouble in the long run what Lincoln did led to a better America. You're kidding right? I doubt he would have given the proclamation at all or as soon had the south not split. Even if he considered it wrong, or what say you, he didn't do it until it was beneficial to him.[/hide] The proclamation was propaganda I agree, but there wasnt anyone that could have done a better job with the whole situation. Lincoln was progressive for his time, thinking slavery was a moral amazing. evil is enough for me to have some faith in him as a good person. The historical time frame is very important here, if the whole country is racist believing blacks shouldnt be in slavery is pretty impressive edit--also, the south began seceding as soon as lincoln was declared president so he was pretty sol as far as preserving the union without conflict.

I think 4chan would be the (spelling) kamasutra

Its possible they cleaned the grammar up for the sake of being able to read it. Or that an adult wrote it, Im trying to maintain some faith lol. still disturbed by the quote I pointed out lol

Way to have a terrible understanding of American history. You are forgetting that almost all of america was badly racist and very few wanted racial equality. The fact that Lincoln preserved the United states and helped set the groundwork for the 13th-15th amendmants is more then enough to earn him a legendary place in history. No, he did not crusade against slavery but he considered it morally wrong. For a time he coudl not be openly anti slavery because it would fracture the country even further, To Lincoln preserving the nation was the most important thing and prevent the spread of slavery was second. As the war went on anti slavery opinions became popular enough that Lincoln decided a bold move against slavery would be the best move to help the country long term. Though the Us had some serious racial trouble in the long run what Lincoln did led to a better America.

lmao! Anyone else worried about an 8 year old using the word sex? Thats like second grade, at least 2 years younger then Id call reasonable. I thought most of those were funny but a few leave me a little more worried about humanities future :?

Im getting tired of the overhyping of Obama. Im going to miss the live inauguration, wish I could see it. I dont like his policy at all but there is enough historical value to it that im interested. Im going to love when the whole country realizes obama =/= a solution to everything. Seriously, I give the guy major credit for speaking ability but oratory isnt everything and I think our government is fubar to the point no president could fix it in 8 years. I wish him well and pray we dont get any shootings to say the least.

Not much to say really, thats quite a shame.

Arr ye be spot on matey. I wonder what body part he will eat next??? :shock:

Wow, assuming thats true I give him serious credit for writing ability. That doesnt improve th efinal quality of the works but that is some serious talent.

Not sure if this is an over personal question, but whats your opinion on the afterlife? Just wondering because Im starting to think we have very similair belief systems that have a seperate god, I coudl be quite wrong though lol.

[hide=] That makes no sense. Yes, Shakespeare is not for everyone. And yes, being forced to read things often results in a dislike for the writings.. but to say he's just good because you're forced to read is stupid. Admit the works are excellent, and then say that the way you were presented them was horrid and you wished they were not forced upon you. He may have been the best of his time, but I feel a lot of more modern writers have far surpassed him in skill. Aldous Huxely and William? Golding come to mind as writers that I find vastly superior to shakespeare. I don't agree with them being vastly superior, but nonetheless.. I agree there are many modern writers that are great. But that doesn't mean Shakespeare is irrelevant then.. [/hide] I agree he is not irrelavant, but I think his works have become dated to the point of losing all but historical value. I guess not understanding the writing contributes to that feeling, biggest problem I had was the lack of worth to macbeth. By that I mean, the theme is generally that unbridled ambition will turn out horribly. Not that the theme is inaccurate but its so topical that I lose interest in the literary value and just read for the action.

That makes no sense. Yes, Shakespeare is not for everyone. And yes, being forced to read things often results in a dislike for the writings.. but to say he's just good because you're forced to read is stupid. Admit the works are excellent, and then say that the way you were presented them was horrid and you wished they were not forced upon you. He may have been the best of his time, but I feel a lot of more modern writers have far surpassed him in skill. Aldous Huxely and William? Golding come to mind as writers that I find vastly superior to shakespeare.

[hide=] How can a human provide evidence for the existence of a being who we can't see or even understand? Why would we even pray to and believe in such a being if we don't even know what it is, what it does, what it wants and if it's even real? [/hide] believing=/=praying to ( I recognize that Johnny Appleseed exists and clearly I dont worship him). Also, I dont really pray Im just generally thankful to the universe for treating me well at times, and I generally credit the universe to some divine being. I dont believe every single lucky thing that happens to me is by some divine being, but some times stuff just happens and Im like hmm that was unlikely, I wonder... Now, that doesnt mean I care if its a god or just dumb luck but I dont think my belief has been anything but beneficial.

The last thing is my personal dislike of the bible from growing up in a catholic family. Read any random section in the old testament vs new testamant and you realize the christian god loved to smite people for fun then decided it was a good idea to send his son to tell everyone to be forgiving. The point about the incubi was just arguing semantics as the example is valid. I believe incubi come from either jewish or christian tradition which lowers their likelihood of existence due to being a superstition from a particular religion. Similair to the tradition of throwing salt over your should if you spill it to prevent demonic possession(yes that is hilarious) The point being if a superstition came from one religion its less likely along the same line as a specific god existing is. . Which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, In which case humanity is slowly shrinking god through science lol. I'll always believe in a being beyond reality, maybe just for some comfort about the vastness of reality, but even if I somehow knew there wasnt a god Im not dependant on it to guide my life so I figure no harm no foul. edit--to above post, agreed hell as a permanent punishment is entirely illogical. On an interesting relevant note. [hide=]As Im sure most people know the catholic church is strongly against abortion.(note Im not commenting on the Us election dont want to argue it good luck to obama even though I dont like most of his policy. So just to clear up this is just a funny note about the catholic church not judging any candidate/candidates.) Well, the catholic church places protection of what it deems innocent life as the first or second most important thing to base voting on, and clearly obama is fairly pro choice. Well, a former nun catholic nun was talking about how excited they were that obama won, then dismayed when they had pointed out to them that he was pro choice. :lol: The point, Americans dont study policy of candidates and vote on the stupidest stuff, clearly if your god is "telling" you to be against abortion you should try to prevent pro choice candidates.[/hide] hid as its kinda political and I dont want a political debate here, the point is [hide=]youd be amazed how much americans vote based on non policy things such as race or "coolness" or the chessy chain letters that I kept getting about how obama isnt really an american citizen(like my parents who find the need to point out obama is black, I wasnt aware that I missed that so Im not sure what they are trying to prove :roll: I think I got those electronic mail from them.[/hide] figured Id hide stuff to avoid political debate as I dont want to deal with it in this thread lol.

and I will watch like this :o :shock: :| :oops: ;) :D :twisted: on topic, I thought macbeth was a pretty good piece of work, but the theme was such a simplistic story of how unbridled ambition is bad. Theres not much to analyze there, its like reading a book on nazi germany and saying what was bad about hitler. Romeo and Juliet I hate with a passion for the sheer stupidity of every single character. Seriously, noone commits suicide that quickly regardless of what they just saw. My 9th grade english teacher full explained romeo and juliet thought so she explained all the adult humor which was funny.

sorry if this is in wrong place I didnt see a more appropriate location. Just thought I would make a thread to discuss the collective works of Shakespeare, or personal opinions about him or any of his works. So I guess ill start off. I think Shakespeare is overrated in some sense, he is undeniably a good writer but the way he is regarded as amazing by so many people I find a largely exaggerated position. Again, not saying anything Shakespeare has written is not good writing, but I find is themes to be very topical and no deep meaning in his works.

[hide=] While I dont have knowledge of the stated timelines, just because a mutually beneificial relationship exists does not mean the beings developed along it. Im certain donkeys eat other food then apples, and im pretty sure that apple trees can exist without being transported across land by donkeys(or with wind transport) so that argument is irrational. Also, what proof do you have that donkeys were made to eat apples and disperse seeds. Thats my point, so many different millions of species 'evolved' randomly to meet each others needs. So the donkey isn't designed for an apple tree, something(s) must be. Its the random genetic mutations which disrupt the timeline for me. If it were an intelligent change it would be more believable. [/hide] You realize how evolution works right? Species adapt in a way that makes them well advantaged in their surroundings due to natural selection. Say all that existed on the earth was a giant orchard of apple trees and some animals. Clearly the only organisms will survive are those that can either eat apples or eat each the other organisms. Any traits that let an animal eat oranges wont give it a benefit so they will either disappear or remain unnoticed. Now, lets say suddenly every apple on the planet turns into an orange. Suddenly any animal able to eat oranges will become a dominant species, and any species that can only eat apples will die out or if lucky adapt. There is nothing intelligent about this process it is just the way reality works. Granted, some species have adaptions that are amazing and seem only possible with outside force, but one must consider that evolution has had milllions and millions of years by which to change everything from a single celled organism into the myriad of lifeforms we have today.

While I dont have knowledge of the stated timelines, just because a mutually beneificial relationship exists does not mean the beings developed along it. Im certain donkeys eat other food then apples, and im pretty sure that apple trees can exist without being transported across land by donkeys(or with wind transport) so that argument is irrational. Also, what proof do you have that donkeys were made to eat apples and disperse seeds.

because there is no evidence, and everyone should realize that. Maybe god is just a psychological comfort device, doesnt that make him real? now if you thought no to that question consider that beauty is real, show me a true empirical example of beauty that is undisputed. If you cant do that you cant disprove god. Also, to the incubi argument I believe incubi come from early christian(possibly clear back to jewish) tradition so they can be discredited on the basis they were made by the same people that brought you god is forgiving but will kill you if he gets mad.

[hide=] That only applies to gods that are defined with clear charicteristics, not the agnostic belief that there could be a god. Also, most organized religions can have a clear contradiction in there dogma that provides a logical disproving of their accuracy.(like christianity having a god that is forgiving yet flooded the earth). All I definitively believe is that there is a god and that it is a generally good being. As I anticipate the classic how is god good if the world has so many problems lets note that I did not claim god was an all powerful being (could have any amount of power from infinite to zero with infinite being highly unlikely due to problems in the world). If you can find a flaw in that I will be impressed. I was referring to Zierro; you two have very different belief systems. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, there's the fact that you're basing your belief on no proof at all. If god has no power at all or very little power, why call him god at all? He would merely be a very powerful cosmic being. I will still posit the problem of evil. If your god has very little power to thwart evil, then he's not really a god of sorts. If your god has lots of power to thwart evil, you could surely post some examples. If your god has power to thwart evil, but doesn't, then he's not good. Then, I will then again refer to my argument from non-cognitivism. Your last response was: The god concept as a statement is meaningless, and thus the hypothesis can be discarded as illogical by default, the same as if I posited the existence of "gritchnaehndkj". If I said that, you might immediately start wondering what on earth it could be referring to, while it does not refer to anything at all- it is completely and inherently meaningless. While the concept of God subjectively might stir powerful emotions and images of men in white robes, the term god itself lacks a positive, objective identity, having no primary attributes as shown several pages back. Since God is supposed to be "infinite" lacking time restraints (etc), it can be shown that god is a meaningless, negative concept, much like "I am not Stephen Harper, I do not have blonde hair, I do not hate everyone, I do not _______." While God is undefined as of now, it is meaningless, and atheism is completely justified. While I agree with you that your version of deism is the most rationally justified theistic belief system, it is still flawed inherently, as shown. If you'd like to try to define god logically, please try :twisted: I've enjoyed this particular argument(much better than lecturing people on burdens of proof :P ). http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... gless.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ition.html[/hide][/hide] EDIT: I promised. Now I have to ask several easy questions and one hard one to try to get a handle on your god and to fulfill my statements. Can your god create something ex nihilo? Most likely, the big bang was either the start of a new universal cycle of big bangs and big crunches or was a cosmic being creating them.(see note in post) Can your god create a water-breathing man? I dont believe god can deny the laws of physics selectively so it depends on if a water breathing being can remain human enough to be deemed a man by us. Kind of like when do we decide humanity weant from ape to man if we could look at every generation of ape. Can your god create green snow? assuming he is powerful enough to change the laws of physics how light works could be altered so that the snow was green. Can your god create red grass? see above, and im thinking there is some species of grass that is red? Can your god create flowers that speak Chinese? they wouldnt be flowers, but god may have created a planet where a flower like being has developed a culture that speaks Chinese(this assumes many many planets with life on them exist so that possibilities that we deem near impossible can occur through evolution Can your god create a human being with 30 legs? not proper legs, though if you are familiar with instances of non born twins leaving small parts behind in their sibling then I guess through invitro a being could end up with 30 "legs", which is such freakish probability that I could contribute it to god Can your god create a woman who gives birth to elephants? human body would reject the elephant fetus, and I dont think god can selectively reject physics so no Can your god create a teacup that dances with a spoon? lol, just lol. I guess so since through extremely complex electromagnet manipulation humans could make a tea cup and spoon appear to dance. (Im going to assume god is able to do more then 1 human being) Can your god create a second moon to orbit the earth? if he has the power to create that much mass at once(also see note) Can your god remove all salinity from the worlds oceans? see above but replace create with remove, for this and above I will say god most likely wouldnt as I believe god to be generally good and both of those scenarios would cause severe harm to humanity Can your god create a biological organism which requires no nutrients or oxygen to live? define nutrient, since any chemical could function as nutrition to some being that questions changes to can god create a being that survives without gaining any more resources. Hmm, it seems logical some being could find a way to use only heat to provide energy for life giving reactions. This makes such a being possible so god can probably make it(assuming humanity finds a way to reproduce basic life and power of god>power of one human and finally; you've heard it before folks; can god create a rock so heavy, he can't lift it? Ah the classic, I actually came up with an answer to this and Im curious about your response. Lift is a term describing raising an object away from a given center of gravity(lifting a rock is moving it away from the earth's center. Now, regardless of god's power he could create a rock equal to his level of lifting potential(be that 0weight 0lift or <><> weight <><> lift) Now either god must be in a vaccuum or on some type of plane to be able to lift/move an object. If god is in a vaccuum placing any force onto an object of any size would move it by some degree. More importantly, an object of gods max power in weight sitting on a plane could be lifted by these means. God digs a downward slope into the plane so the object can gain speed while it descends and places a curve at the bottom to launch the object. Since the object cannot gain height equal to its fall due to friction, as soon as the object launches frmo the ramp god applies all power he has to increasing the upward velocity of the object. Presumably, friction could be reduced to nearly 0 allowing the upward thrust provided by god to make the object attain a height above its inital height, at this point in time the object has been lifted =D> [hide=]sigh* I know that is what logic is and what its purpose is, I'm saying that that is not all of life. Logic is certainly the way to go if you want to, how do I say this, solve a problem in the most likely way(?). Logic is limited by logic. There is room for no other in a purely logical thinking system. A square circle is a paradox created solely on the basis of human definitions. I think God could create one outside the bounds of logic, which is the whole point I'm trying to make. The way I see it, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who believe in the word impossible and those who don't. I don't.[/hide] agreed, except id end last paragraph with I do. The tricky thing here is, I am not defining god in clear boundaries due to the fact I believe he escapes any logic that can be derived within reality. This is very similair to how in the schrodinger's cat problem anyone outside of the box must conclude the cat is both alive and dead while they may contain there own feeling about it which is just as accurate as the other person's feeling(atheism vs theism) Someone outside the box however can not say the cat is alive and enjoying the experience(general theism vs specific religion). Now, someone inside the box can definetivly say whether the cat is alive or dead and through observation determine things such as if the cat is in a good mood. The problem here is that since any god would exist outside of "reality" as best we can tell there is no way to properly determine his existence. This causes the paradox where god cannot be disproved or proved. If we change the definition of god to any being that exists outside of reality, then logically god is more likely to not exist because there is no basis; however, he can still exist because we can never have the science or logic to disprove him. This brings me to my conclusion that agnosticism is the most accurate model of god, but both agnostics that feel there is a god and those that dont are simply making a judgement call about a paradox. Similair to the what came first the chicken or the egg. The more qualities one attributes to god the less likely their model is to be accurate due to logical flaws, such as how if god is both good and almighty, it makes no sense for him to have allowed a universe with evil. and to the above post, notice that my belief in god isnt just "some idiot saying you cant disprove him" I understand that logically atheism makes more sense, but I also understand human logic is limited. wow that was a lot of text :geek: edit--my text boxes got messed up somewhere, I dont think anything is messed up to the point of causing confusion though

Ill respond properly in the morning have to get some shut eye right now. Ill try to answer those questions properly as soon as possible, especially due to the quality of this debate. Bear in mind agnosticism is accepting ones own lack of knowledge of god so I cant answer them in the context that most people would consider "proper". On the issue of a non infinite god not being a god, that is caused by no religion having a non infinite god and since I dont have a better term Ill refer to all beings that exist outside of our physics as god(unless we get proof universes and not just one being exists outside our universe in which case Ill be too amazed to care for a few years :lol: )

or Googlam or Googiest

That only applies to gods that are defined with clear charicteristics, not the agnostic belief that there could be a god. Also, most organized religions can have a clear contradiction in there dogma that provides a logical disproving of their accuracy.(like christianity having a god that is forgiving yet flooded the earth). All I definitively believe is that there is a god and that it is a generally good being. As I anticipate the classic how is god good if the world has so many problems lets note that I did not claim god was an all powerful being (could have any amount of power from infinite to zero with infinite being highly unlikely due to problems in the world). If you can find a flaw in that I will be impressed.

So you are now saying that you want women to justify feeding their babies naturally? He's being quite literal, and saying that just because something is natural doesnt mean its right. It doesn't indicate disapproval, its just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning that its natural therefore dont you dare disagree with it.