Crocefisso

When you're putting traits as labels onto the average person who holds faith - it wasn't clear at the time he was talking about creationists/extremists and I personally don't feel that continually going back to these psycho-fringe groups progresses any mature discussion on the matter - that do not accurately represent that group, and continue to do so, I think they do. In what way is Powerfrog stating something religion based is amusing to him immature? :rolleyes: This is a God based discussion and, being able to relate to his post, it made me smile at the thought of the people he was referencing. The post was perfectly clear to me: there was nothing about labelling entire groups in the post - in the context, it is obvious he used 'so many' as a relative term to the absurdity of the belief - and the post had no relation to the average person who holds faith (again, I say this as a person who holds faith). Better adjectives would have been 'amusing' and 'relevant'. I am sure that you would act within the spirit of those scriptures, which is the point I was trying to make, so yes I think you would. The point you made, however, was that nobody of any faith would assume human superiority over other creatures, implying a knowledge of all the scriptures. :unsure: The last clause confuses me - you think I would act within the spirit of the scriptures, I presume, but that still doesn't address how you know the teachings of the Shobogenzo and can make blanket statements.

That's really not what most religious people think at all - not those who are true to the teachings and aware of their respective scriptures. That viewpoint seems every bit as arrogant as the vilified theists this topic is portraying. so many =/= most. Besides. It's in the bible. Not sure what you mean by true to the teachings. As for the "somany != most thing" I don't know what you mean to point out. Every group has their extremists. If we're basing our views only on the extremists, then this isn't a discussion worth having. As such, I don't think it's right in the least to take such an arrogant/flippant position in such a strong, difficult discussion. Powerfrog was pointing out that he wrote "so many people do x" and you responded "most people do not do x", and by writing "so many =/= most" he was indicating this. As adjectives go, 'arrogant' and 'flippant' are certainly not the right ones in this situation. And yes, the attitude that Powerfrog highlighted still persists among many, not most, creationists that I have come across. Saying that people would not hold such a view if they were aware of their "respective scriptures" implies knowledge of all the scriptures ever. For example, I am a Soto Zen Buddhist, and the main scripture in my life is the Shobogenzo - are you sure such a view is not expressed there?

^ This is true to some extent, though I agree with another poster who stated that the ultimate burden of evidence lies with theists. The original conjecture, if you will, is that God exists, and until that has been proven any atheist need only point out that God is unproven to disbelieve in him. Only strong atheistic claims such as "God can not exist under any circumstances ever" need be proven.

I absolutely agree. I wrote an article on this here and was completely dismissed. Good to see someone else shares my view. I think what people mean to say when they say that 'x will cause the end' is that x will hasten the end.

Quite a nice, unique song. It's definitely going on spotify. Some sections sounded a bit awful, but for the most part I liked it. 7/10 Just had a visit from my maternal grandmother, introduced me to this wonderful/hilarious song.

The moral highground is my favourite sort of ground. It's taken great self-restraint not to moralise on this thread. :D

Why does this make you happy? Perhaps he is an anti-theist?

Thanks for alerting me, Sy. Looking around at the thread, I had no idea that the usually morose and laconic OT community could get so fired up about something as abstract as God. ;) I personally do not believe in God in the traditional sense and, because it is redundant to theorise about a being other than the God of the Bible/Qur'an etc. (whose key attributes are virtually the same), I tend not to bother. This is not to say that I find discussing the matter pointless, however - if such discussion weren't allowed on this forum, it would virtually be a ghost town. :P I also freely admit that my highly Catholic upbringing might have contributed to my anti-God beliefs. To illustrate quite how pious my parents are: I have two forenames. The first, Crocefisso, is an old Catholic name meaning crucifix, while the second, Girolamo, is in memory of Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican monk who ruled Florence in the 15th century and was later burned in some piazza under Papal duress. :-D

The title is quite self evident. If you're going to vote, please do not be afraid to give reasons as to why you believe what you do, and if you vote other you're pretty much obliged to ;) (otherwise I'll assume you believe in angels). [Couldn't find a thread like this aside from the vague 'religious beliefs' one, but wanted a poll - please do direct me to one if it exists]

One thing I've noticed is that the ad clearly targets a younger audience with the resemblance to a children's film trailer, but at the same time mentions you need to be 13 or over to play the game - why make an ad that a) isolated much of the RS demographic (in terms of long-term membership at least) by more likely than not putting off young adults, and b) then mentions you should be above the age that would usually be attracted by the animation style?

Oh I see. I am guilty of the same.

Out of curiosity, are you the person asking the second line, or do you want to slap the people who point out the gramatical error? One my Dad always used to do if we asked to see the juice is he would pick it up (normally off the floor because that's where the juice jug always ended up), and then put it back where it had been. I'm not sure when we started asking to see the juice instead of asking to have it (as in I don't know where that comes from), but it proved to be a light hearted way to correct us. And I'm one of those people who will use a question to point out when people mistake can and may. I'm confused by the last sentence.

:lol: Very funny.

That has to be one of the most useless adverts I've seen in a long time, even considering the fact it is nothing like the game.

This has shattered whatever remaining confidence I had in Jagex - my slow decrease in RS use since late 2010 has culminated in an utter loss of confidence in both the nature of the SoF update and the absolute public denial of all problems by Jagex, which really just goes to show their immaturity as a company.

I've lost count of the murders/manslaughters reported on this thread since my last post - rather horrible situation for those involved to be in. :( My recent workload seems rather trivial by comparison.

The French electorate and their pliable nature.

The High Court needs to be doing more useful things with its time than enforcing some redundant copyright law - for example, getting on with listening to Theresa May's pleas over the Abu Qatada fiasco.

Just bought one of these on amazon. Can't wait to start making Turkish coffee at home. EDIT: Grrr, can't use html on this board. It was a Turkish coffee maker, for those that didn't guess.

This needs some explaining for me. To my knowledge, a famine is usually an involuntary shortage of food in Ethiopia or some such place caused by drought and mismanagement. They usually go on for longer than 30 hours, too. But I am guessing there's an American meaning I'm not picking up on.

What makes an invasion illegal? The charter of the United Nations, as shown in the first paragraph here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

It's a testament to OT that this thread hasn't become like most Facebook statuses.

Liberia's Charles Taylor has been sentenced for his involvement in the civil war in Sierra Leone today (not worth a thread of its own). Though this is all well and good, it does worry me that the principle of international justice really only seems to apply to small and/or impoverished nations. There is no warrant for those who ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq, for example. I can only truly be satisfied with convictions such as these when I know the principle is universally applied to all nations.

Verbal, I presume?

My favourite flower is by far the tulip, for the record.