user1991

Never could in the first place. Honestly, if someone could come up with an actual good argument for the existence of God I would consider it. As my own personal belief. Are you deliberately being so vague..? Neither. It's religion. Are you realist or anti-realist? Oh, really? I guess I wasn't aware of that. Oh, wait. And if you're putting "exists" in quotes, you should technically put "not" in quotes. A fanciful, uncommon part of English I read in a grammar book yesterday. I wasn't putting "exist" in quotes as some sort of insult implying that he doesn't - what I was trying to get across was the question, how do you define existence..? Goes back to the whole realism and anti-realism thing. Without a definition of God, and a definition of existence, we can't really debate whether "God exists".

I think you're right on a lot of things. The internet is a place where presidents/politicians are pretty much ripped to shreds and a lot of what they do good isn't noticed. We notice the bad much more than the good. BUT, when it comes to Bush. I don't think he is nearly as stupid as most people try and make out - I still don't think he's very intelligent, but granted, he isn't a [developmentally delayed]. Although, he did say that they were going into Iraq because they had serious intelligence that they had WMDs. Either he lied, or he was misinformed by other foreign intelligence agencies, or the foreign intelligence agencies were actually part of the lie. Personally, I think that Bush's team/Blair's team manipulated public fear (after 9/11), manufactured this whole "45 minute" WMD attack situation (Look up David Kelly, he even said that some of the so called "weapons manufacturing facilities" that our governments were talking about were CLEARLY not "weapons manufacturing facilities"). I think this is plainly obvious, whether he personally lied or not doesn't matter because the government partook in creating a climate of fear in order to get both another 4 years in office and invade Iraq under the guise of "protecting the nation." He brought in the PATRIOT act, the fact that it is even called the "patriot" act is testament to the fact they are openly manipulating people with nationalistic propaganda. He claimed that God told him to invade Iraq (CLEARLY manipulating the Christian majority in America).. Whether he lied specifically about the claim that they had WMDs is entirely irrelevant because he blatantly took part in manipulation of the people, which is just as bad as openly lying to them. The motive? Probably not oil, most likely territory/or a strategy to create a climate of fear in order to get a stronger majority of people voting on the neo-con side of the spectrum and therefore get more power in the future. Quite frankly I don't know. But to claim that they DIDN'T manipulate the people is just ridiculous, they do it all the time, most politicians do it, and I think with Bush people decided to draw the line.

I don't see how we can debate this further.. How are you defining God here..? Also, how are we defining "real"? Coherence or correspondence theory of truth? Without these two definitions set in stone we really can't debate whether God "exists" or not..

Pascal's Wager. 1) Even if you believe in A God, you haven't specified which of the thousands of them, so if say, Thor turns out to be real, everyone is still screwed. 2) You're assuming God rewards belief.. and not honesty. Plus, don't you think an all knowing God would see through the fact that you're believing just to save your skin in the end? If God turns out to be real and I'm standing before him when I die, I'll honestly say that there wasn't enough evidence for me to believe in him (as Bertrand Russel would). If all these Old Testament verses that we atheists keep quoting are really "irrelevant" or "taken out of context" then I'm sure that God could find somewhere, in his all loving metaphorical heart, the kindness to say, well, you didn't believe in me, but at least you're being honest, as opposed to someone who believed in him out of fear. Why does God have all these human qualities... why would an all loving, powerful, knowing, beyond human comprehension God care whether you believed in him or not - it seems rather petty and quite frankly sounds like something a human would make up.. If something similar to the Christian God existed, coupled therefore with an objective moral standard, wouldn't it be more likely that God would reward those who were "good" people? Of course, I can't say what God would or wouldn't do, that's your job.. So if you're telling me that he rewards belief, then fine, but it seems like a rather childish attribute..

1. He won't be remembered for that. 2. ......... 3. (Under false pretences, by manipulating public opinion with scare tactics and propaganda in order to erode civil liberties, create a climate of fear, and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the process) Oh and on the scientist note. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. In that God thread you seem to dismiss Scientists when they talk about evolution, but as soon as it comes to something that you agree with, they happen to be right then. : =D> Bush was a terrible president, and you only have yourselves to blame. I don't think we're THAT much better in the UK, sure we're slightly more left, but the labour of today is nothing like the old, worker's labour. Too bad noone is willing to give more left-wing policy a try *sigh*. We have America to thank for that. Anyway, I'm tired of these American Christian conservatives. The rest of the world hates them and they just don't get why, and they still go on with all this "land of the free, home of the brave" bull when they don't even know the meaning of the concept of freedom.

Cut the [cabbage], Satenza tried that. God would find a way, and you still wouldn't give a [cabbage], as proven by humans in general. And NoMoreDead, you hit the nail right on the button, exactly, which phases? The only one. Which just goes to show, evolution is not compatible with the Bible. The way we are now, is the way we *looked* back then. And I'm still sticking with Evolution as a theory, since thats what my BIOLOGY teacher said, and she teached college Biology for 15 years, and is head of the science department, and every single SCIENCE TEACHER there, athiest or not, says Evolution is a theory, even thoughs that believe in it. At least Sly Wizard, whilst he IS incredibly pompous, can formulate a coherent argument. But YOU, you are just supplying strawman after strawman. Sure, the theory of evolution is a theory.. And.. what? One theory isn't equal to another theory just because they're both technically theories. Plus, the scientific term theory is different to the way most people use it in everyday life. There is a mass of evidence for evolution, A MASS. If I could be bothered I could probably get you a million links from neutral scientific research websites that support evolution. You could get me what.. the ramblings of a brainwashed Catholic priest with no formal scientific knowledge? Theists play the NOMA card all the time and I'm tempted to flip it on them and tell them that if all they care about is "theology" then they should stfu about so called scientific matters. What the....? It isn't "selfish" to think we're alone in the Universe. We don't know whether life can occur under other environments etc, the environments that we deem unsuitable for life are simply unsuitable for the life that we have observed on Earth. I'm not saying other life exists, but I am saying that if you look at it, there are billions of galaxies and billions/trillions of stars in each, therefore it is LIKELY that there is other life, that is if you don't assume the predicate of the "breath of God." Okay, so God is omnipotent beyond the laws of logic etc because he created them? If that is the case, why couldn't he give us free will AND remove suffering? Most Christians who have thought about that, even for a second, will say that God can only do the logically possible, or as Aquinas said what is "absolutely possible". You obviously haven't thought about it.. @ Sly.. ever heard of Sathya Sai Baba?

1. There is no "point" to debating, not in the sense you're speaking of anyway. 2. All around me..? How vague of you. Wow, I mean, I would be tempted to assume that you're all rhetoric but maybe, just maybe, you're onto something.

Okay... but where's the evidence for all of this? And on the bus crash scenario - why do you think the word "coincidence" exists? It's there for a reason. What's more likely, a fortunate (for you) run in with your Mum to avoid a bus crash, or, an invisible all knowing, all present, all powerful, all everything creator of the Universe interfering with the fabric of spacetime (if he can interfere for you then why can't he interfere for everyone else?) If this is your idea of evidence... I think God has put you here to test MY faith lmao.. What you're saying there doesn't make any sense.. If God loves everyone, why would he save just YOU? What about the other people that got injured. Why was there a bus crash in the first place? Oh, cause we have free will. But wait, he saved you didn't he? Edit: If you're being sarcastic (which I doubt) then I apologize.

Religion does a lot of good (and bad), we know that. He isn't refuting that. All he is saying is that he thinks the advertisement is preying on vulnerable people. For example: "Feeling depressed? Put your faith in Jesus!" but never "Feeling perfectly content? Turn to God!" You can view it as preying, or you can view it as helping, depends what you believe - but this thread isn't about that. On topic: I don't see why this should offend any Christian... If someone says they believe in God, it doesn't offend me, those adverts don't offend me. Hell if someone says "evolution is a lie, the testicles of the ancient Lebanese dirt salamander are irreducibly complex, therefore our ancient archaic text is true" it doesn't offend me. People believe different things and unless they are discriminatory then there is no real reason for someone to be offended. I think the adverts are good, regardless of whether you're a theist or not. Just getting people to think is a good thing - some of the religious adverts are also good, usually the ones by the more moderate types. Anything that gets people to think is probably a good thing.

MLG Customs If anyone wants to play MLG customs, add the GT "NovaS MLG 4v4" and view his friends, there should be a few people online and usually they will have people on their lists who they can invite too. You will also get invites from others who are on the list to play mlg setting custom games + testing for the new MLG maps (iso king + lockdown (forged))..

I'm on the fastest internet the UK has to offer (I think), namely Virgin Media fibre optic, and all I'm getting is 5240 down, 706 up with all other programs closed.. I don't see why we can't just use the same technology that they use in Japan.... London has about 8 million people compared to Tokyo's 9 million people, not really that far apart. I don't get it.. what is stopping UK companies from introducing such mega speeds? Patented technology?

This is ridiculous. 1) Pedophiles use IRC and encrypted files on hosting sites to transfer child porn between each other. 2) To stop children viewing porn you do NOT need to introduce a nation wide blanket filter. 3) 22% speed loss whilst IDLE?!?!?! What about when it's in full swing??? 4) All the legit sites that will inevitably be filtered due to the inaccuracy of modern filter systems. 5) This filter could be EASILY manipulated by the government to block political activist and protest websites/and or websites that do not agree with the government's policy. 6) If the cost of this program was put into something goodl, say HEALTHCARE, you would actually see a beneficial end result. 7) There are hundreds of anti-gov hacker websites and a fix will be out for this filter likely within hours/days.

Why should porn be blocked? Sure, it can be anti-women, or it can cause viewers to maintain anti-women values, but this is irrelevant. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE. The same goes for drugs and prostitution but this isn't the place for that debate. The women have consented to it, it isn't even in the same league as child porn. All these anti porn people are anti-FREEDOM, full stop. It's bad that it can cause people to have negative attitudes towards women, but are you seriously suggesting that we tell people in the porn industry that they can't do something WITH THEIR OWN BODY because others don't agree with it?

Collective is right - most people have these ideas of child porn sites where you just log on and the pictures are there to be viewed, and think oh, if we filter those all will be well. This just isn't true. They use sites with no mention of "child porn", they have communities based around IRC chats where they post links to encrypted rapidshre and megavideo downloads. This filtering won't even do anything. It is extremely easy to encrypt a file, anyone with even a remote understanding of technology could do it, and even then - there are guides on the internet. Pedos will just continue as normal, and send amongst themselves encrypted files and this filter will do NOTHING. Stopping abuse of children is a GOOD thing, but this will not do that. This is an extremely slippery slope. How will this filter system work anyhow? How many legal sites will be accidentally filtered? How long is it before they add sites to the filter list that simply disagree with the Government's political ideology? Sure, I'm dealing with extremes here, but has anyone forgotten how these totalitarian regimes start? I

Question everything

I respect you in every way possible. mdma = safer than alcohol. Anyway, everything about raves own, especially the dancing.

Don't come to the UK. Sure, we don't have the such a strong evangelical Christian presence, but our political system is nearly as messed up as yours, if not just as.. Our PM now is terrible, he wasn't elected, his policies are laughable, pretty much all he does is bring in new laws to try and win votes from select demographics because he knows he has lost and he knows it's the only way he'll be able to attain support - but by doing this, he's messing up the country even more. The sad thing is, the conservatives are likely going to get into power, it isn't definite but its likely, and with our first past the post voting system only labour and the conservatives have a real chance of winning. Both parties are terrible, and whilst our population may not be as open to war as yours in the US, I still think that if the government produced "evidence" of a so called "threat", we would go to war in a heartbeat. The government still side step on every major issue, war on terror, drugs, etc, and refuse to actually acknowledge any alternative ways of helping society. Canada is a better option.

Egh, whilst it was a tragic event and all, I really think you guys in the US should stop dwelling on it so much. There's a difference between simply paying respects, and creating some sort of bizarre national wake event. I'm not saying forget about it, but really, all you're doing is creating a climate of fear and anger within your own country. By having these weird national memorials on TV and the radio and pretty much all forms of media, you're just adding to the fear. Sure, pay your respects, whatever, but fact is, 9/11 wasn't that bad. I know that sounds pretty harsh, but really, when you think about it, which is worse, the deaths of 3000 people in surprise attack by religious extremists, or the deaths of 90,000 people in a war that was executed under false pretences, by a government that lied to the public to gain support, on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, all under the guise of "fighting terrorism."?

Since when has being black or gay been classified as an action?

Huh, so you're saying that because of something being improbable doesn't mean it doesn't exist? What a leap of faith. Well, it was a bit of a bad idea to try and bring logic into a debate over faith - something I spoke of before. And not oly because it just doesn't work, but because I'm not good at it :P Here's a question, Which is more vital in your life - faith or logic?

I'm not trying to spread false info, but he did die from LSD. So, in this case, that story has a false bit in it maybe added to make a purposefully taken dose of LSD look like a mistake. I don't know, but sorry for the semi-false story. I didn't mean no harm. :( Well, there you go assuming I'm anti-weed. ;) I was referring to the other guy. It's obvious from your posts that you aren't anti weed.

I've known quite a few guys who have gotten marijuana laced with cocaine, LSD, PCP, you name it. All because no one regulates. Another reason to legalize. Once I got weed laced with PCP.... but the thing is, it was actually amazing. I guess I'm really lucky I didn't end up thinking I was a chicken or a goat or something. Most of the people were fine, but the guy who got the marijuana laced with LSD died. I forget exactly how, but I think it was suicide "technically". Probably not suicide under the influence of what he didn't realize was LSD. I know for a fact that that is complete and utter BS. LSD will be destroyed by the time you get the marijuana to burn. So it can't be cooked either. So unless you're telling me that the guy slow cooked brownies with LSD laced weed, then you're lying. Quit spreading false info. I'm sure the LSD wouldn't be destroyed by the time the brownies were finished. Brownies don't get that hot when you cook them. Unless you're already high and you put the oven at max temp to cook the brownies faster. LSD is destroyed at like 80 C..... LSD is safer than alcohol.

I think the system in Amsterdam is similar to that, with coffee shops as the "bars". BTW, nice sig :P

If you're going to be anti-weed for safety reasons then its only rational to be anti-alcohol too, when you consider that alcohol is much more dangerous. That is, if you're being rational.

I've known quite a few guys who have gotten marijuana laced with cocaine, LSD, PCP, you name it. All because no one regulates. Another reason to legalize. Once I got weed laced with PCP.... but the thing is, it was actually amazing. I guess I'm really lucky I didn't end up thinking I was a chicken or a goat or something. Most of the people were fine, but the guy who got the marijuana laced with LSD died. I forget exactly how, but I think it was suicide "technically". Probably not suicide under the influence of what he didn't realize was LSD. I know for a fact that that is complete and utter BS. LSD will be destroyed by the time you get the marijuana to burn. So it can't be cooked either. So unless you're telling me that the guy slow cooked brownies with LSD laced weed, then you're lying. Quit spreading false info.