fakeitormakeit2

Now we're on the same page! ;) I'm speechless, what can I say. Didn't think I'd get to meet someone as immature as yourself on the TIF boards. If something seems too dumb to be true, it's probably a troll attempt. Your comment still stands though. Though a gay person probably thinks heterosexual sex is gross too. Let's remove everyone's equal rights except those of asexuals... Unless not having sex is gross too. I think all sexual relations are disgusting.

It's not that we can be very bad to nature, it's that we are consistantly harming nature (that's a fact, not an opinion). As for you Haiti comment... I agree... I just don't so how that's relevant to our discussion? Trust me, I've been here long before I created that account. I had another account (I can't even remember it's name) and also mostly was an observer. And no, I wasn't trying to tell you what I think, I was trying to explain what I concluded from what you said, and why. I think I should have probably said it parallels to my comment on us in contact with nature. Just because I am annoyed by a cliche doesn't mean that its false.

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever? What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing? Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up? P.S. I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters... Well I could answer your question, or you could answer mine. ;) If someone proved there is no way ever in any way that God could exist, then I guess I would stop believing. But as of right now, God is as real to me as the laptop I'm typing on And you truthfuly don't see anything contradicting in that statement?? Actually, I don't. You really don't see anything wrong with your claim that God (an entity you've never seen or heard or touched, and nor is there a proof of it's existance) is as real as your Laptop (an object you've touched WHILE claiming what you had claimed, probably have used it countless times, I assume you know exactly where it originated from, and can easily understand what it's made of)? Perhaps he sees his God as a being reflected in the good will of others, and is an entity comprised of the total sum of souls, a nirvana-esque type being. Empirical evidence does not always work. Its limited to our ability to detect. Now explain to me, how do you know there are oxygen particles in the air you're breathing right now? How do you know that oxygen is normally a diatomic molecule? Have you seen a diatomic oxygen just float past you? Someone had to eventually prove it through observation under a microscope. Before hand, I wouldn't say that it is so impossible that educated people theorized that there was oxygen present in their air and that's how our respiratory systems worked, but they couldn't see or prove it. Another thing, do you see emotion? You see the result of emotion but you do not see the concrete hate, love, etc. There are many things we cannot see.

^ I said what you bolded not because I disagree, because I just don't like cliches. I do not like hippies who always say how bad we are to nature. Yes, we can be very bad to nature. But its also like Haiti. Yes, what happened in Haiti is horrible, but its over publicized, possibly only because that's what the media thought was a "hot topic". That does not take away from my sympathy to the people of Haiti, it just means that I hate hearing the same thing over and over and over again. As for the last part you said about my comment on dominance, I quoted myself from an earlier post to show, because I had this in the same post it proves I did not believe what you said, because I blatantly said that we have the capacity to destroy. And you don't have to tell me about responses, I've been on Tip.It longer then you have by 2yrs. Generally though people would say well everything else you say is meh or crap or I really don't have an opinion on. Do you realize you're trying to tell me what I think? ha.

I'm sorry but.... Do you know why Bobby Henderson created FSM? The original purpose was to debate whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Henderson claimed that if any one God is taught about, so should be for FSM, for there's as much proof it exists as there is about any God. When atheists made notice of it, it quickly caught on and in a very short period of time became a parody of religion. As such, it makes every bit of sense that God-mockery is it's direction. It took you all the way to page 166 to realize it's intention is to mock God? That's odd. There's no reason for logic behind it, that's why it can be so easily compared to religion. FSM is a perfect deity, invisible and undetectable that created the world with it's almighty apendage and had "planted proof" of evolution to see if it's followers will still trust it exists. There's as much proof that FSM exists, as there is of any God, or Darth Vader as others have pointed here. Also, they're not 2 sides of the same coin. You could say they're wrong for mocking others' beliefs, you could even say their behaviour is absolutly disgusting (I'd beg the differ, not that it matters), but you can't compare religous extremists, those who kill the innocent in the name of religion, or force their opinions on others whenever possible, to those who mock it. R'amen. I already knew as to why it was created. I have no problem with those who do not believe in Intelligent Design to debate against it, I myself do not believe in Intelligent Design. We all have the right to have our own opinion, and we have the right to criticize others as long as we do so in a CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner. The book basically is a mockery of religion for its entire length. Is that really necessary? No. Nor is it intelligent to do so, it's overkill. An atheist who disagrees with religion, debates intelligently against it while still maintaining civility, that is one whom I admire. But to even put such emphasis that one is an atheist rather then a theist is ridiculous because if we are not causing harm to each other, and on the contrary helping others, WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER? The point of religion isn't only that there's a God or not by the way. It's a mentality to do good to others, that prevails through all religions in some form or another. I act with goodness because it is in line with my human nature, therefore it is like God's. I do not help the poor, etc. because God requires me to. Rather it is the right thing to do. There is a difference between intelligent satire and repetitious mockery to the extent were it just gets annoying. And yes they're beliefs are both disgusting. And the extreme atheists do shove their beliefs down others throats by stating how illogical and stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. Extremist atheists do not have the means to act, well extremely, because they are a very small minority (I believe it's like 2.6% of the US). Also because they reach their conclusion based from logical reasoning (considered an equally valid methodology to faith in the Catholic Church), normally they would reason that it is best to nonviolently approach something. Others arrive at cynical schools of thought where because there is no purpose, there would be no purpose in doing so. As a matter of fact, we have the right to criticize others even in a not CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner. It's called Freedom of Speech. As for necessary? Definitely not. Is this discussion necessary? I wouldn't believe so. It's an opinion and has every right to be named and heard by people. In addition, there's no point for an atheist to discuss religion intelligently because religion, in it's essence, has answer to everything (which is why it had survived for so many years. Even for "reason-less" questions, one could say God is a mystery, etc). The chances for an atheist to actualy convince someone else he's correct are so slim that it's almost pointless to try. However, when you present something similar to religion (such as FSM) it's both quick, to the point, and doesn't require any points or counterpoints. It's simply rediculous (IMO, just like religion, which is why I find it so interesting). I believe the "point" of religion is irrelevant to our discussion. Lastly, "extreme atheists" (put in quotes for the very weird label) don't "shove their beliefs down others throats", they simply over-act their opinions, something perfectly allowed by the Freedom of Speech. 1. You're right. It is a right, and one problem I have with people acting like this because it is a protected right is that they vain their speak because they have no control over their civility. If one wishes to discuss something that is fine, but if they will vain their speech in crudity and mockery they are an idiot and they discredit themselves as competent people to even discuss the subject. 2. You say religion is ridiculous. In some religions, they do not even contain a God and just advocate a just lifestyle. Then, how can you still make the statement that religion is ridiculous? If I also turn your attention to my signature, "your daily life is your temple and religion." In my religion, a lifestyle based upon a system of just ideals of any sort is a religion. Is then [i presume your ideals are just as you seem like a decent person] your lifestyle ridiculous? Which makes the "point" of religion very relevant. 3. As for the stereotypical Protestant who says your going to burn in hell because you don't believe in the "One true God", just as the some atheist thinks they're [developmentally delayed]ed and should go find the hell to which they speak and burn in it because their life is meaningless because it lacks logic, is just over acting their opinion? Also just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean you should lack self control to withhold yourself from doing so without civility.

I'm sorry but.... Do you know why Bobby Henderson created FSM? The original purpose was to debate whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Henderson claimed that if any one God is taught about, so should be for FSM, for there's as much proof it exists as there is about any God. When atheists made notice of it, it quickly caught on and in a very short period of time became a parody of religion. As such, it makes every bit of sense that God-mockery is it's direction. It took you all the way to page 166 to realize it's intention is to mock God? That's odd. There's no reason for logic behind it, that's why it can be so easily compared to religion. FSM is a perfect deity, invisible and undetectable that created the world with it's almighty apendage and had "planted proof" of evolution to see if it's followers will still trust it exists. There's as much proof that FSM exists, as there is of any God, or Darth Vader as others have pointed here. Also, they're not 2 sides of the same coin. You could say they're wrong for mocking others' beliefs, you could even say their behaviour is absolutly disgusting (I'd beg the differ, not that it matters), but you can't compare religous extremists, those who kill the innocent in the name of religion, or force their opinions on others whenever possible, to those who mock it. R'amen. I already knew as to why it was created. I have no problem with those who do not believe in Intelligent Design to debate against it, I myself do not believe in Intelligent Design. We all have the right to have our own opinion, and we have the right to criticize others as long as we do so in a CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner. The book basically is a mockery of religion for its entire length. Is that really necessary? No. Nor is it intelligent to do so, it's overkill. An atheist who disagrees with religion, debates intelligently against it while still maintaining civility, that is one whom I admire. But to even put such emphasis that one is an atheist rather then a theist is ridiculous because if we are not causing harm to each other, and on the contrary helping others, WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER? The point of religion isn't only that there's a God or not by the way. It's a mentality to do good to others, that prevails through all religions in some form or another. I act with goodness because it is in line with my human nature, therefore it is like God's. I do not help the poor, etc. because God requires me to. Rather it is the right thing to do. There is a difference between intelligent satire and repetitious mockery to the extent were it just gets annoying. And yes they're beliefs are both disgusting. And the extreme atheists do shove their beliefs down others throats by stating how illogical and stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. Extremist atheists do not have the means to act, well extremely, because they are a very small minority (I believe it's like 2.6% of the US). Also because they reach their conclusion based from logical reasoning (considered an equally valid methodology to faith in the Catholic Church), normally they would reason that it is best to nonviolently approach something. Others arrive at cynical schools of thought where because there is no purpose, there would be no purpose in doing so. I apologize to the author of this thread for participating in being extremely off-topic. Anyone who wishes to respond to my post, please do not respond here as it does not pertain to the topic. If you wish to agree/disagree/further discuss, I'll accept a PM.

I just rather resent the Western criticism of Islamic extremism now when they've only dealt with it for the last few decades, while for instance my ancestors have dealt with it for the last 1200yrs and my father and his parents left because they received enough death threats. The only reason why Islamic extremism is so widely portrayed in the media now is because America encountered it in 9/11, so now it's horrible and a crisis. Don't get me wrong, it isn't right, but America had no problem funding the Taliban (Afghanistan), the Shah's oppressive regime (Iran) or claim their support for Hezbollah when they fought the Christians (in Lebanon) who were pro-Saddam. America only wears its morality as its best garment, i.e. they have double standards and only condemn something if they're effected, and they'll allow an injustice to occur because it benefits them. [/rant]

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind. The point is that normally such arguments place humankind outside of nature. And again you pick one part and disregard the rest, I said we have dominion over everything because we advanced to a point in which we are basically stronger then everything else and we could destroy everything if we wanted. So please, point out to me, where did I say we are unable to harm nature because we are part of nature? I was stating I'm sick of a cliche, don't assume things. So if I disagree with you I must disagree with every single thing you said? That makes no sense to me... I found your nature comment wrong, and simply replied to it. Also, no, you never said that nature couldn't hurt nature. However, what you did say is "Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature." and as a response to me saying that nature could be better off without us. I think any person with a healthy mind could understand that you meant we couldn't be bad to nature because we are nature. Lastly, about the dominant part of nature- A. And if we are (and we are) so what? B. Humans techinically have that ability, yes. However, the human race wouldn't survive too long after doing that (we wouldn't have any animals to feed on, we'll miss the air (as there are no plants if we destroyed everything), I'd assume many other recources would be destroyed in the process aswell, etc). Then I must be extremely sickly in the head, because I could not even understand that I myself meant that. As for I questioned why you didn't comment on anything else was because I don't assume opinions, i.e. you would agree with anything else that I said. When I speak with people and they disagree, they normally say "Well I agree with you about [Point A], but [Point B]? That's completely unreasonable! etc." Edit: And my comment on the dominance of humans over nature was to disprove your claim that I think since we are nature we cannot harm nature. If I openly say we could destroy it all if we wished, then how does that mean I do not think humans [a part of nature] could not harm other natural things?

I would only stop believing if they proved it 100% that there is absolutely no chance of God's existence ever. And I keep seeing a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Alone it stands as a valid comparison to those who do not believe. However I doubt most or any who use said character have actually read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have the belief that one must read everything pertaining to their beliefs, even the opposing arguments to their beliefs. I read said book with an open mind. The first 7 pages or so was funny, as it was a comical satire of Christianity. But when I got to page 166 [the end] I realized that the majority of it developed into senseless religion bashing, based simply on mockery and had no logicality to it, its only mission to mock. That is the type of atheist I discredit, those who imitate religious extremists in a reflection of their own atheist beliefs, they're two sides of the same coin.

In order of preference from Greatest to not greatest but I still loved it: 1. Code Geass 2. Death Note 3. Kuroshi+suji += t stupid censor

^ Really? Thanks for straightening that out, I couldn't quite remember exactly. That makes it even more so ironic [for obivous reasons].

Really anything by Blink 182, Sum 41, +44 or Green Day. I don't know why, I'm not a very emotional person, but I could cry when I hear some of their songs because of the memories.

When Worlds Collide by Powerman5000

^That is awesome. Lava legs lol

[hide=THIS!] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nizt2oEtHl8[/hide] Just kidding, I like this song, it's quite invigorating http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN4IuLuL7N4

I'm not quite sure this is per se a Runescape screenshot, but it is a screenshot of something Runescape ;) So I was curious as to what would come out if I searched my username in Google.... I have no clue who the person who posted my username was, and he also posted a kid's username who I went to grammar school with... stalker much lol

But the same can be said for the pros. Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows. But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else. This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think... Just like that South Park episode with like the Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist League and the other one (I forget the name) all were fighting because they thought their name answered the "great question" better lol.

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind. The point is that normally such arguments place humankind outside of nature. And again you pick one part and disregard the rest, I said we have dominion over everything because we advanced to a point in which we are basically stronger then everything else and we could destroy everything if we wanted. So please, point out to me, where did I say we are unable to harm nature because we are part of nature? I was stating I'm sick of a cliche, don't assume things.

I acknowledge his right to do so, but I don't find it right. Plus why is there a need to "protest" against religion? Why must their be criticism of a belief system that doesn't aim to harm you and in fact is good oriented and yet must receive criticism? And it is the same mindset that it was his way of protesting religion that mistakes all Middle Eastern people (and people who are just olive) as Muslims. I do not justify extremist muslims, but would you not be pissed off if your belief system was constantly desecrated blatantly and the major superpowers of super goodness, sugar and rainbows only promoted such an idea?

I do feel as though the Danish cartoonist had all the rights and ability to do what he did, but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should if it's disrespectful. The actions of the cartoonist are not just justified nor are the extremist who attacked him. And I also rather detest those who say "Islam isn't as bad as Christianity, because Christendom caused the Crusades". Each situation is different, and we must judge ourselves according to the situation, we cannot compare unalike situations. But alas people are foolish and they have long tongues so in the end, my Muslim friend, I, a non-Muslim Middle Eastern, and you, a Muslim, are both just "towel heads" to the ignorant. The ignorant are like those who refuse to distinguish between art. They do not know the beauty which they miss. But there's also a very good Arabic saying, before listening to the words of an insult you should look at what mouth it came out of first. I find this a very appealing saying, especially in this modern world of ignorant and cultureless idiots.

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature. We exemplify natural selection and survival of the fittest, because if we wanted to, we could use our power to destroy everything else. However, with a different approach we have the obligation to maintain nature as we are the dominant nature. But back on topic, I think it depends on the mentality in which you bring children into the world. Someone having one kid could be selfish were as someone with 10 kids is not, simply because the person with one neglects their kid and taught it would be "fun" to have a child but cannot support them. Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs. 10 love all their kids equally and support themselves. But overall, it is our nature to reproduce and its selfish if we have the financial means and time to provide for children. If we aren't stable in those regards, I find it would be selfish to not be able to control yourself if your headed to a path of stability and you just wanna pop some out.

We cannot return to the gold standard. It would be restrictive on our economy, as well as it would be us purposely reducing the value of our currency because countries we send aid money to have a tendency to purchase gold from the US gov. so in turn we'd be paying to reduce ourselves (well we are already doing that, but it would be even worse). And saying that because we took ourselves off the gold standard is why our currency has been constantly decreasing is the logical fallicy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Our economy profited heavily from the European wars were European nations had to buy American resources to fight each other, and now that Europe has a continental peace since WW2 and more over since after the fall of the USSR, our economy is falling as we cannot compete because we've lost our edge.

I would agree. I also get irritated by people under the age of 13 who proclaim their maturity but fit under the description of a typical annoying brat. Some kids under 13 are cool, but as you said majority are not so much. But eh, I would consider myself pretty mature now, but I if I recall correctly I was kind of immature in some regards. I'm 16 & a jr., 17 in July. I consider it pretty bad that I'm still playing Runescape now that I see that the average is younger.

What should I make to get to 68 summoning? I'm currently lvl64. And also, about how much will that cost me in GP and charms?

Yes, I rather enjoy the BBC.