user1991

A Christian talking about reason, please, do not even start. Either you should base all your beliefs on reason, or base none of them on it. And considering you don't press the "G" key when you're trying to type a "Z", ill assume you use reason. Your religion is stupid, please stop, you're killing the species.

When does a baby begin to "be"? Is it at the moment of conception, at birth, when it develops a nervous sytem, or way before that, when the Father is born, or when his Father was born. Now that I think about it, cause and effect makes no sense, because as Alan Watts would say, "there is no past, or future, only now." - which if you think about it, makes sense, because "events" don't really exist.. Anyway, that's way offtopic. Back on topic: Palin and McCain are both morons, and they have no place being the two most powerful people on the planet.

When will the American political system evolve so that instead of the individual leaders themselves being the main focus, the actual policies of the party are the subjects that are under public scrutiny? The patronising, condescending tone of your politicians is out of touch with your general populace. I have met many intelligent Americans, and I sincerely doubt whether such a tone is even necessary to win any votes. I think instead, it creates the idea, especially from the outside looking in, that your country is a lost cause, when in actuality, it is far from it. An observation I have made though, is that politicians care less about making the country better than they do about getting into power. (This is the same in pretty much every country I can think of.) Here in Britain, if a political party suggested a system of tax that simply removed all the stupid taxes like sales tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, and raised the income tax to about 50%, they would never get in, even if we would be paying the same amount as we would have before, because other parties would say something like "They want to take 50% of your income!!!!" when they know full well that they would take the same amount, simply under the guise of a number of different taxes, which incidentally, punish the poor, as they are the same amount for everybody, regardless of wealth (sales tax for example). All this proves is that politicians will knowingly reject the best policies simply because they feel that it would lose them votes. Isn't the whole point about making the country a better place?

That only really makes sense if you believe that "reality" is whatever can be imagined. Subsistence, or something like that.

I remember when I was about 15 - I was sitting at my desk daydreaming, when just randomly I started thinking about existence, reality, etc, etc, and I was plagued with questions. It felt horrible, and I wished it away, but eventually I gave in, and I started writing stuff down, trying to make sense of it all. After a few minutes I thought to myself.. wait, how did existence come to be, if it did in the first place, is it possible for something to be eternal, is the concept of "nothing" even possible, etc etc.. and then I looked around me, and I thought of the molecules, and the air, and all that stuff, and it overwhelmed me, and I came to that conclusion, right there at that moment, that there must be a God. Then, I thought for about 5 seconds, and then realised that just because we do not know something, does not mean that we have to attribute it to God.. I tried to think myself to early civilisation, where they had no explanations for anything, and then imagine what it must have been like trying to make sense of it all.. and that to them, quantum mechanics, gravity, etc, would have seemed totally ridiculous. So I thought, hey, there's a lot of stuff here that nobody knows - but why must that mean that "God" is the cause? What evidence here suggests that a God exists? Holes in our knowledge..? Wait.. no, that is much evidence for the world being controlled by evil Alien-Ape hybrids who are blocking human consciousness from understanding itself as it is for a God.. In a thousand years, maybe they will look back upon us and pity our lack of understanding..? For those 5 seconds there, I was a deist. That's something I haven't hear before, but it's a very interesting idea! Humanity could actually be a Frankenstein's Monster of God. Reminds me of this: I think it is a very interesting idea. I haven't read enough about it to assess if there is any evidence for such a claim, but even so, it is interesting to think about.

Because women are generally weaker than men, and its sort of a taboo to hit them. There isn't really a real reason, except for the fact that we have been told to not hit women since birth and therefore subconsciously we may frown upon it even if the woman is a world champion kickboxer and she's beating the shibazz out of someone in the street.

*cough* I wouldn't be doing my duties as an atheist if I didn't point out that religious faith is the cause of extremism, and that the moderately religious give extremists cover by making criticism of "faith" a taboo in our society. *cough* Anyway, back on point. If other cities had been nuked, and we pretty much knew we were screwed, I would take like 300mg of n,n-dimethyltryptamine and get ready for a journey.

So what happens after they go into this "program"? They come out, and all is well? No. They come out, and they're screwed up mentally because they've been pulled away from their parents in order to lose weight. Why dont they just introduce a compulsory exercise program for obese children..? Or maybe make it so they have to visit their doctor more often with their parents in order to assess the situation and plan on losing the weight. I agree with the other guy, if they just had 3 mile runs everyday at school then there wouldn't be this problem in the first place.

Exactly. Its a shame they have so much influence. I would rather have the US being the #1 world power than it being China or Russia. As would I. But still, we live in a world where the "#1 world power" (quite an overstatement) has influence over pretty much every other country on the planet. THAT, is my problem.

Exactly. Its a shame they have so much influence.

Skill reports (marking them as too good or too bad) have no effect on rep. I learned this when I avoided the guy that kept driving into the wall. And I'm not using it, it's just something I thought up in the shower today :lol: But if the aim is to get better.. then it is beneficial to play people who dominate you In fact, I'm gonna say, the best thing you can possibly do is play with people who are much much much better than you. Go to Mlgpro.com, go to the forums and try to get into custom games with people, they're generally pretty good. Play the MLG playlist, I mean, it focuses more on skill. No power drains/regens, no radar, and it's br starts. It's a playlist where you actually need to think + aim + communicate to win. The most important part of the game is communication + teamshotting. A decent BR helps though, I mean, learn the hitboxes, and on XBL you have to LEAD YOUR SHOTS. I always used to dismiss this, then I noticed that I kept getting out BRed by people who I knew I could dominate, so if you just lead the shots by a small amount if theyre moving, you'll notice a big difference. Plus, you can learn spawns - especially on Onslaught + Amplified, where you can easily setup spawn kills. Plus there are just general little things you can do to make your game better, quickscoping, learning the hitboxes for effective plasma grenade sticking, developing a solid BR coupled with an unpredictable strafe, effective jumps like g1-g2 on guardian, middle of s1-s2 on guardian, platform-open ramp on cstruct etc etc etc..

Possibly the worst analogy I have ever, ever heard. I mean.. cmon. Are you actually being serious?

Jackattack, answer Ginger's question. One secular reason why gays should not be allowed to marry? If you're going to be anti-gay atleast admit that its because of your religious beliefs instead of trying to bs your way out of it ..

@ Lenticular J. Wow.. The idea of objective morality is that certain things are "right" and "wrong" regardless of human existence. It's really surprising you don't know that considering most debates about Christianity revolve around certain things being "right" or "wrong" according to the Bible. Look at the homosexuality thread for example. Well, I'm glad you admitted that it cannot possibly contain any. You're more of a deist than a Christian man. I mean, not many Christians actually admit that it cannot be both infallible and open for interpretation. Now all you need to do is admit that your "faith" is you believing whatever you want regardless of reality, and then I'll stop asking you questions.

I would argue that it isn't a fact. Many stories and legends are not literally true but have much to offer in the way of morality and general life principles. You saying the Bible is either entirely literal or entirely false is like saying a math textbook is entirely false because of a fictional story it uses to illustrate a true mathematical principle. You have to understand that certain books are used to illustrate a certain type of truth. Math textbooks reveal truth about math, and the Bible reveals truth about God's character. Just like it's ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the mathematical principles contained in a math textbook, it is ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the principles about God's character contained in the Bible. I agree with you that it remains quite a big leap to suggest that the Bible is either literal or worthless. However there is a point behind that conclusion, but perhaps not one quite that drastic. If the Bible does illustrate certain truths that do remain ambiguous to the reader and interpretation is necessary. It does not under any circumstance invalidate the Bible, it does however appear to me to invalidate all incorrect interpretations of the Bibie, which makes any interpretation quite irrelevant to us if our aim is to find an objective moral law. Unlike the example you gave of a mathematics book using illustration to demonstrate a maths problem, the illustration in the Bible can lead to all sorts of conclusions many of which will share the same credibility. The Bible is supposed to be a "rigid moral code" - that cannot be the case if there is interpretation involved. So if being a "rigid moral code" is the Bible's purpose, then it pretty much is worthless. Christians NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER reply to me on this one. How can a book detail "objective morality" if it is open for interpretation in ANY WAY. The whole point of objectivity is that they are correct regardless of human existence. If we INTERPRET them, they cannot be objective (unless everyone has the same interpretation. Which they don't.). It is impossible. It's like saying 1+1=3. It just doesn't make any sense. You can't side step it, you can't dance around it, because it makes NO SENSE. One of two things should be assumed: 1) All of the Bible is correct. There is no interpretation, we are to take things entirely literally all of the time. 2.) The Bible is open for interpretation, but it does not contain said "objective moral truths" because it is open for interpretation. So the Bible is not infallible, or coherent. None of the Bible is "God's will" because we have interpreted it and we cannot be sure that it is the correct interpretation.

And I was not. :D Lenin's method is the best for instant wins in a Sword match: Bumper Jumper. That, and all the jumping and stealth tricks that you learn. MVP on our Swords game, with two killing sprees, I believe. I almost got a killing frenzy, I think. Shadow, I always thought it was the top 3. But don't take my word for it. Bumper Jumper wrecks in any playlist. Either that or playing claw. Seriously, countless times I've 4-5-6 shot someone (its XBL, give me a break) then their friend comes in and im a 2 shot, you hit 2 body shots and youre a one shot, just jump back and ghandi hop (keep hitting crouch in the air) and aim the reticule at bottom of the head to guarantee that when you land you'll hit the last headshot. Without bumper jumper you have to re calibrate the crosshair after you hit A to jump. With bumper jumper you can just keep on firing. If you want to get a 50 without buying it then I would recommend just playing Team Slayer. Lone Wolves is full of random games that are usually AR starts (and the AR takes no skill). Doubles is full of people with new GTs trying to get a 50, and they're usually like legit 47s. So just try and find about 10+ people who CALLOUT (most important thing in the entire game), have a decent BR, and ALWAYS VETO AR STARTS EVEN IF ITS ON A GOOD MAP. The BR is your key to victory. The MLG playlist egh, up to like level 45 its full of people who are host-booting or standbying, and after that the standard of play is much higher than every other playlist, by far.

I agree. We don't really need a whole book to tell us, "Follow Jesus's ways and the world will be a better place." The whole point of Christianity can fit on a T-shirt. Why do we even need the extra stuff? Why can't the Bible be a small book that just tells us about the ways of Jesus (How to be a Perfect Person for Dummies). All that extra hubbub about heaven and hell and the word of God just leads to confusion, arguments, and ultimately leads to the rejection of the Christian ideal - to follow Jesus's ways. I'm not a Christian and I still go by the golden rule. I don't go to church. I don't read the Bible. I don't pray. I don't because none of that ends with a rewarding tangible result, but following the golden rule always does, whether God is real or not. I agree. But all the bs about homosexuality, objective morality, BLEGH is annoying. Especially because it isn't just atheists who take not of it - it's not as if Christians are simply following the golden rule and we're pointing out all this other irrelevent stuff. A lot of them do actually believe that BS. Even smart ones, like Sly_Wizard, who is obviously a really intelligent guy. It just blows my mind when he talks about the Bible being "coherent, infallible, and forming a coherent world view" whilst still acknowledging that it is open for interpretation. I mean, that really doesn't make any sense. And a lot of Christians do everything BUT follow Jesus.

It depends on your belief system. I don't take it literally, many people close to me don't, and it seems a lot of people here on the forums don't. Some people do. Is your life ruled completely by any of Darwin's theories? Scientific Method? No, I'm sure it isn't, because I'm not going to try and guess what you believe. It's sheer ignorance to believe everyone believes the same thing. I don't mean to take this personally, but I really hate debating with you, True. It just gets to me. Stem cell research, homosexuality, drugs, guns, war - Christians all have a different opinions on them. That's the entire point. Of course I'm not saying that they believe the same thing. That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. If the Bible was a "rigid moral code" then it wouldn't be open for human interpretation. The entire reason for there being different view points are because the Bible is open for interpretation. So when a Christian tries to legislate something because "it says so in the Bible" - they're trying to subject the public to their will, under the guise of it being the will of a Supreme being. Whilst I'm aware you don't all have the same opinions, the idea of a book that details a "coherent, objective morality" that is STILL open for interpretation BLOWS MY MIND. It isn't possible. It's actually IMPOSSIBLE. It doesnt make any sense, it defies the laws of logic and reason. You just seem to want to discard anything I say because it challenges your religion. You can't explain to me HOW the Bible can be a moral code or HOW it can detail "objective morality" when said objective morality is open for interpretation. Of course my life isn't "ruled by Darwin's theories or the scientific method." I don't pretend that they're the word of God. I don't think they teach me objective morality either. Your argument here doesn't make any sense. Either ALL the Bible is literal, or none of it means anything. That is a fact. If you decide which parts to ignore/take note of, thats simply what you've done. Decided. This isn't open for debate. It's a logical statement. Something cannot be considered a "rigid moral code" if you can simply decide which parts of said morality you believe in. It isn't a code. It's a catalogue. There is no "objectivity" involved. In fact, I think objectivity is just a BS concept that humans made up to make us feel like we actually mean something. Faith, God, Jesus, Yahweh, WHATEVER - put it aside a second. The concept of "objective morality" can only be a system of actual objective morality if the book in which it is supposed to be contained has a 100% definitive meaning. If it is open for interpretation in any way, shape or form, then you're simply cherry picking what you want to believe and telling everyone else that this is what God wants. The only people who can actually say that it contains said "objective moral code" are the people who believe every single word. Which is impossible, considering it contains so many contradictions. This is why, ultimately, I think the Bible means nothing at all. Either you're choosing what you want to believe and telling everyone it's what God believes, or you believe the entire thing which in turn means you believe multiple, contradictory ideologies, which again in turn means you have to choose between one of them. It doesn't make any sense.....

Wait wait wait... "It's not meant to be taken literally" (The bible) - Lenticular J So.. that means it's meant to be interpreted? That would kinda imply that you give it your own meaning. How can it also be a rigid moral code as so many Christians profess it to be? In fact, how can it even be the word of God? Well, I suppose it could but, if it isn't meant to be taken literally, then one can simply choose how to interpret it... which in turn means you can choose your beliefs and preach them as the "word of God"? Excuse me one second but this is what I've been trying to argue for pages and pages. It's either a rigid moral code as well as literal or NOT a rigid moral code as well as interpretive. It can't be both. It's actually impossible for it to be both. Unless every single person on Earth has exactly the same interpretation. Which they don't. And don't say "Oh but only some parts are open for interpretation" - cause they aren't. Christians side step anything they don't agree with. You know that part where Jesus tells the wealthy man to sell everything he owns and give it to the poor, well Christians actually argue that Jesus infact meant "spiritually poor" and therefore they use it as justification to preach. If he meant that, the whole topic of the "wealthy man" wouldn't have been included - unless the author was trying to mislead you - but when I actually think about it, they probably were.

Who the hell cares if its blood? Really, all these people who are like "oo, icky, yucky yucky bloody blood" just sound like a bunch of 5 year olds. The whole point of the blood is to convey a message. "Well why couldn't she have just done them in paint?" - DUH. Cause then she wouldn't be conveying the message that she is conveying by using the blood.

I have lucid dreams quite often. Since I took DMT, I had a dream that I was taking DMT in said dream, and it had the exact same effect. Maybe it has something to do with the theory that dreams are actually caused by DMT. That would make sense really.

Bill Hicks was a genius. If any of you get the chance, try DMT. It really will change your perspective.

please don't turn that into a new meme :pray: I've thought about that too. What's the point when it is just existence, and isn't going to matter when the universe collapses and everything is dead. Plus, what Mrpez said, the universe is infinitely big, so 1 person's problem out of billions on one planet out of the infinite galaxies doesn't change anything I'd have to disagree with you there. While I hate to be so uncaring, some people and their lives matter more, or make more of a difference, to the planet we live on. For instance if Barack Obama dies, it will have more of an impact on the world than a starving orphan in the slums of Mexico City. But then you could say, that starving orphan, in the right circumstances, could have grown up to be an an-poverty worker who tried to change the world. Bit like Mother Teresa. Sorry if that doesnt make sense/if its OT. No, bro. No life is more valuable than another, simply because of the reason you stated. Well, I think the question of whether life is "serious" or not depends on whether you consider there to be meaning in anything. Personally, I think that the very fact that we do exist is meaning enough to live life. True "freedom" would not limit or dictate to people what they can/cannot do with their lives (as long as it does not harm anyone else.) Due to the general meandering myopia of the public majority, the willingness to accept the traditional "live to work - work to live" mentality as the only path that can possibly be considered "productive" in turn limits the hidden creativity that we all possess by disabling any dreams and hopes one may have and cementing this idea of "guilt to the system" deep within our subconscious, which manifests itself into our belief system, stopping us from attaining our true potential. Well, that's what I realised on an acid trip.

I'm a 50 in doubles/ts/obj, 48 in LW and 49 in MLG., I just started a new GT, got the 50 in like 40 matches LOL. If anyone needs help getting a 50, pm me on here - I'll try and do it in TS. For MLG customs, pm me here - we play most nights, really only consider this if you've got a sick BR and you can easily get a 45+ in playlists cause otherwise you'll end up going -20 every game. Oh also, I'm selling levelling service - $75 for a 50 from 1 - or I can help you level other accounts but if you've got like 5000 exp and 20 skill it may cost a little more. The way the levelling is done, we don't boost, you just come into a TS party, crouch in a hiding spot and then 3 of us will do all the killing. My FL is full so don't send me any messages/friend requests, all communication will be done on here or on MSN. (If this is against any forum rules, please notify me and I'll remove the post)

How does a "cohesive view of the natural world"[*] prove that it is of Divine inspiration? It is as much proof of the existence of a God as it is proof of the existence of intellectually superior aliens. And do you believe the entire Bible? You must, if you consider it the word of God, right? If to you, ANY of the Bible, yes ANY of it, is open for interpretation, you must realise that your interpretation is simply you choosing to believe what you want - which would totally undermine the idea of the Bible being "the word of God." [*]Coherent. Infallible. Coherent world view. It cannot be considered coherent when virtually all of it is open for intepretation. If it is open for interpretation, than it cannot possibly be infallible. As said earlier, it cannot have a coherent world view if it is open for interpretation. What about all the contradictions? It's not that any of it is open to interpretation, it's that it's not literal. The only people who take the bible literally are anti-religious people. I've met people who say the bible is literal but no one is an actual literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move. It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea. Does that mean that there really are sea monsters? No, the author was trying to convey another point. Wait.. in order to not take the Bible literally - you have to interpret it right..? If the author was trying to "convey another point" - then it must be upon the reader to interpret said point. I doubt very much that every single person who reads the Bible interprets that point in exactly the same way. Why do you dismiss some sections as ancient mythology yet preach "Divine Inspiration!" about the other parts that you agree with? All you are doing is picking and choosing, picking and choosing. Cherry picking your morality and then professing it to be the "will of God." @ Lenticular J - Okay, but you've got to recognise the good with the bad. What about some kid in Sierre Leone who prays to God but still ends up having his family murdered and his arms chopped off.? Maybe you were saved from the hurricane for no reason - other than you were. Maybe it was more likely you would live than you would die. If you're going to attribute everything positive to God then it only makes sense to attribute the negative to him too, (unless you believe in the Devil - but that wouldn't make any sense when you consider that God is supposed to be omnipotent.)