Dheginsea

makeover mage exactly, you can't assume a girl is a girl just because of their avatar.

This might be a bit late but, Aasiwat good luck with whatever you do :thumbsup:

I think its called sauflon lite as that is what i use and my package looks like yours

I wouldn't call these absolute truths. It would be possible for somebody to be created in a laboratory, and what's your definition of "dieing"? (It's dying btw) I guess that depends on your definition of 'born'. Is it when the foetus turns into a baby, or is it the moment of conception? Or maybe we are never born or dead. Matter doesn't disappear when we die, it just changes forms. Same with birth, matter doesn't just come out from nowhere it just changes forms into a being. Our bodies and minds just change forms, it is just the idea of them that dies and is also born. I would say that we are dead, although born I'm not so sure about. I would say that death comes once our selfawareness (however you spell that) goes away. So yes i think you could "die" without really "dying"

Doing good things for the wrong reasons. Why should i care if you helped an old lady cross the road if you did it to get a VIP ticket to eternal bliss? If i do it, i do it because i'm a genuinely nice person, i don't gain anything out of the situation other than the satisfaction of helping someone else out. You get all the ice cream and va-jay-jay you could dream of. Not saying all religious people are horrible people, just maybe not as nice as they seem with the man with a suitable pit of fire for them to spend eternity in if they don't help Dorris up. Yeah, that means religion is supposedly making the world a better place. If you disregard the countless wars/deaths caused by it. Oh, and don't forget the countless years in which science came second to religion, holding back actual progress and replacing it with "if you do things i, God, made you instinctively want to do before getting married i will kill you repeatedly forever." After the fall of the roman empire the catholic churches held on to science so it wouldn't be lost. It's how Columbus knew the world was round. So if you take the catholic church away but keep the fall of the roman empire, the knowledge would have been lost, Columbus would have never made his journey, and you wouldn't be reading this today. Perhaps if religion hadn't been holding back science, Columbus would have been landing on the moon. That might have been the case because the dark ages really only affected europe, and Africa became one of the worlds greatest powers at the time.

I would guess that if the catholic church fell islam would have eventually over taken paganism.

Really? Then again I don't care much for what people consider moral, morals change with society. Yes really, and of course morals change with the times. Would you still say that if I told you that 33% of rape victims will have suicidal thoughts and 13% will attempt suicide? [1] Then i would say it depends, if i knew that the raped person would then commit suicide i would rather another person be shot and killed. If i knew they would not, then i would prefer the rape over the death. And if i didn't know either way i would prefer the rape over the murder because there is a relatively large chance that there would be no loss of human life. Sorry reply was a bit delayed been busy with school work.

Really? Then again I don't care much for what people consider moral, morals change with society. Yes really, and of course morals change with the times.

Had a test on the amendments, and got a math test back was only a B+ :sad:

A bit contradictory isn't it? You would WANT to protect your children. Besides avoiding school shootings, all such law would protect is the parents getting shot at by their kids. It sounds like another case of unnecessary government protection from ourselves, since it's the parents fault for risking it in the house. No the law would prevent smaller children from playing with their gun and accidently shooting themselves or preventing school shootings. Also, yes the law would be unnecessary, but it also would be helpful if put inplace.. Come to think of it, the people who are weaker in terms of physical strength are the ones who most benefit from guns. My youngest sister is rather small for her age, and on top of that she had a stoke before birth, meaning that she has spastic cerebral palsy. She in no way could defend herself from a rapist by force, but with a gun she has a fighting chance. I want you to tell her that you want to keep guns away from her to keep her and my family safe. Tell her you would rather her be raped than to own a gun. And what would you tell the mother of the child that your sister shot either accidently/or meaning to? Would you tell her that you would rather own a gun than have her child still be alive? If the child had been shot on purpose, there would have been a reason for it. Would you rather your own sister to be raped, over some person you don't even know being shot? If you don't have a sister, what about your mother? Your grandmother? Your closest female friend? I meant accidently really, but even if the person meant to shoot the other child that does not neccisarly mean the shooter had a reason. :eek: i find that statement to be so immoral! Personally i would rather sister, or mother, or closest female, friend be raped over the other person being shot and killed. If shot and only injured not killed than i would rather have the person shot than my sister, or mother, or closest female, friend be raped.

A bit contradictory isn't it? You would WANT to protect your children. Besides avoiding school shootings, all such law would protect is the parents getting shot at by their kids. It sounds like another case of unnecessary government protection from ourselves, since it's the parents fault for risking it in the house. No the law would prevent smaller children from playing with their gun and accidently shooting themselves or preventing school shootings. Also, yes the law would be unnecessary, but it also would be helpful if put inplace.. Come to think of it, the people who are weaker in terms of physical strength are the ones who most benefit from guns. My youngest sister is rather small for her age, and on top of that she had a stoke before birth, meaning that she has spastic cerebral palsy. She in no way could defend herself from a rapist by force, but with a gun she has a fighting chance. I want you to tell her that you want to keep guns away from her to keep her and my family safe. Tell her you would rather her be raped than to own a gun. And what would you tell the mother of the child that your sister shot either accidently/or meaning to? Would you tell her that you would rather own a gun than have her child still be alive? Your suggested legislation reminds me of the literacy tests and grandfather clauses of racist southern voting rules of the 1930s. Attempting to circumvent the basic rights of man through the creative lawyering of definitions harms society as a whole. I fail to see how this could compare to literacy/voting taxes? Those laws were used to discriminate against the rights of black people, this law is to protect younger people. When you have children you lose some rights one of those should be the right to bear arms. Also if the right to bear arms is a fundamental right for all people shouldn't the crimnaly insane have the right to bear arms and nor be bared from purchasing guns? Isn't that discrimination against a group of people?

Yes but that future population could theoretically destroy the earth you really could use that arguement either way.

Lets say a married couple could afford a kid, they use birth control because they dont want kids (or more kids) would you be against them getting an abortion given that the birth control failed and they dont want kids? No i would not be against that, in my post i stated that while i would find it morally acceptable i would find it less acceptable than the other scenarios i listed.

A bit contradictory isn't it? You would WANT to protect your children. Besides avoiding school shootings, all such law would protect is the parents getting shot at by their kids. It sounds like another case of unnecessary government protection from ourselves, since it's the parents fault for risking it in the house. No the law would prevent smaller children from playing with their gun and accidently shooting themselves or preventing school shootings. Also, yes the law would be unnecessary, but it also would be helpful if put inplace..

It's really hard to say, since we don't know of a world without religion. I think morality is good for the world. I think blind belief without evidence or especially in spite of evidence is very bad for the world. But if I had the choice between a world where everybody had morals and nobody believed in science, versus a world where nobody had morals and everyone believed in science, I would have to pick the moral world. But I really do think that morality can be completely seperated from religion. Why do we need a man in the sky in order to express our beliefs about what is right and wrong? Ya i guess a moral world with no science would be better than a world with no morals but that would also be debatable. Also your completely right about not needing a religion to have morals, I mean I'm not religious but I consider myself moral. The concept of a perfect god is a Greek one. See weak theology, etc. Assumptions, assumptions. Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but I thought Gods that werent perfect and acted almost human was also Greek. See gods that do bad things out of jealousy and fear What Fakeit meant was when you say perfect do you mean the Greek idea of perfect: which i think is unchanging. The Greek religion had the gods be unperfect for a reason gods don't have to be the definition of perfect in a culture.

I think that we need much stricter laws on gun control especially for people who have children under 18 years of age. Also in the model congress club I'm in at my school I proposed a bill limiting the sale of bullets (which I believe does not inflict on a persons right to bear arms).

Personally I have no moral problem with terminating a pregnancy if the following scenarios have or will occur: Rape/incest Threat to mothers health/life upon giving birth Child would be born into a family unable to take care of it/would abuse the child Single mother unable to care for the child Although if it was just because the lady was pregnant and didn't want the child I would be a bit more iffy about it but I would still have no moral problems with the abortion.

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

Nice pks but you need to tone it down a bit on the special effects

dude that is my now favorite accent of all time congrats! :thumbsup:

wow nice job on locking the spirit

Wow man good luck on maxing out. :thumbsup: and what did you merch to get a 6bil bank? also bank pic please.

Made to believe? You mean like theres a gene that wants us to believe that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe? Maybe not a specific gene, but we certainly are inclined to believe and search for the supernatural, both from a sociological and a psychological point of view. And atheism (be it right or wrong) seems to be an evolutionary novel idea, along with liberalism and sexual exclusivity. I would have to disagree with the statement that atheism is a novel idea, liberalism I'm not so sure about, and sexual exclusivity is relatively recent. And ofcourse we would be inclined to believe in god from a sociological or psychological view because humans want to feel special/important or just have a strong belief/hope to help them through life.

God would still be God. A lack of Satan would not change how God exists although people might not count him as good Fakeitormakeit may I ask what the Arabic (I believe) symbols in your picture mean? First of not every religion states that god is perfect. But even if they all did they're definitions of perfection would be very different from eachother. For example look at my earlier post about a perfect world I'm betting that yours (or someone else's) would be different from yours. The fight (I think) is less over that there is a god (unless its between theists and atheists) but who's god is the one that actually exists. Also when you say perfect are you referring to the Greek idea of perfect. May I ask this you don't have to answer if you don't want to, are you theist or atheist? It seems that your are looking for a justification to be atheist? And are you saying that nature has given us a gene that makes us more inclined to be a theist than an atheist?

Exactly, the world doesn't seem perfect to most people. But then again maybe thats just part of the perfectness... that it has the flexibility to seem imperfect. That's a bit contradictory isn't it? Life may seem very contradictory at times. Its not perfect if it doesn't have the capability to seem imperfect. Then an imperfect life would seem perfect? Exactly, it could. Perfect and imperfect are subjective anyway. One man's imperfect may be another man's perfect. What would you then define as a perfect world? Mine would be: A mix of both poverty (nothing extreme) and wealth (nothing extreme) Wars (conflicts really) but nothing like WWI or WWII or even Iraq/Afghanistan. Freedom of speech/religion No religious bias Low but still existent crime rates Those are the basic parameters to my "perfect" world, because you need the bad in the world to remind you of the good. Also would you then agree with this (as said in the book 1984 by George Orwell):War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Power