assassin_696

Oh it is, well worth a watch on a HD TV if you can, since it was filmed in HD.

Yeah, that's made it a much clearer point thanks. The thing is though, and I know this is a tired argument, but your God cannot be proven (or disproven). It would be just as easy for Moses to have laid down the Decalogue himself as a basis for a way to live your life. It may have then been believed by thousands and millions, but that doesn't make your God any more real than my made up god. Is the existance of absolute morality a debateable subject? I'm curious. Surely since the existance of God is such a debateable subject, therefore if one doesn't believe in God I can also not believe in absolute morality, which I am inclined to do so.

But then it's not absolute, it's only apparently absolute. BIG difference. Explain please.

The Elegant Universe It's a documentary about the current problems with physics and the rise of string theory. It's very well presented and colourful though, nice analogies are used and it's not too complicated at all. I enjoyed watching it, and would recommend it to anyone remotely interested in physics.

I'm not mad at you, i'm just slightly frustrated that such a potentially beautiful and wonderful human being is being held back by a nihilist mind. I have actually gone through that stage of thinking "Well, what's the point. What does it matter?" but then I overcame it. Life is wonderful for me, and if it's not, rise up to make it wonderful for you and others. Live not for a higher reason, but for personal dreams and aspirations. I don't want to make any great assumptions, but you live in the UK. So i'm guessing you don't know much about true pain or suffering, as I don't, or most of the people who are posting here. But I bet if you asked someone who had been through real suffering why they kept going, it was probably for love, or for a dream of a better world. I think those are pretty good reasons to exist.

Go travelling, experience the world. Sure, this may mean nothing in the long run but you may as well have a good time "existing" while you can. Honestly, you've no idea how lucky you are to be able have such a privaleged bleak outlook. It could be so much worse for you, make the most of what you've got, because i'm getting the vibe that you don't deserve it.

Pfft, stop being such a depressed nihilist. You're no idea how lucky you are to be alive, and this is all we've got, so make the most of it and enjoy it. Stand for beauty and righteousness, be happy, love, spread joy.

I'm sure you're more than capable of teaching yourself, but there is absolutey no substitue for practice. Practice playing some scale runs, practice chord changes, practice different techniques (like vibrato and string bending). Don't be sloppy or lazy, if you teach yourself the basics well then the rest will come easy. The hardest part of learning to play any instrument can be to stay motivated. Play music that you like to listen to. Don't expect to be able to play it exactly as you hear it, don't expect to be able to play anything like Clapton for a long time, but just find a song that you like, and that's quite easy to play and practice it until you can play it with your eyes closed. Honestly. Also, www.ultimate-guitar.com is the way to go for tabs. And don't worry about learning classical notes. There are some very, very good guitar players at my school who cannot read sheet music. They're also doing very well in their music GCSE.

BULL DITTO I have no idea when bending was 'invented' and don't pretend to know, but I'm pretty sure it was red hot during the Jazz age of the 1920's due to the nature of the genre. There are lots of rumours how it became a popular guitar technique, apparently B.B. King used it a lot to try and get the slide guitar sound used in the Missippi Delta. I'm guessing string bending is very much rooted in the transfer of the blues further north, Hendrix certainly did not invent it. Don't think jazz players are so hot on bending, but they might well have used it.

I'm not capitalising this because i'm angry or anything, it's just a point I want to stress. I MAY NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO JUDGE SOMEONE'S ACTIONS BY ABSOLUTISTS MORALS IN THE ABSENCE OF A RELIGION, BUT I AM WELL WITHIN MY REASON TO JUDGE THEM BASED ON THE LAWS SET DOWN BY A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BASED ON CONSEQUENTIALISM AND UTILITARIANISM. We have to judge actions without one religion. Living in a multi-cultural society we cannot judge everyone's actions for practical purposes by absolutist religious morals. Another point, why do you as Christians cherry pick your morality from the Bible? You don't follow all the rules set down in the Bible, I know, because they're outdated. But if you really believe in the concept of an absolute good and evil which is set down in the Bible, why not follow it to the letter? By not taking the fundamentalist view do you have a right to judge other people's morals when clearly your absolute morals are generally fairly conservative. That's not what the Bible says kiddo. How about you only talk about things you know about from now on? Again, i'm no expert, but I did understand that Evangelical Protestants believe exactly what warrior said. Another point i'd like to make. We only need religion and the concept of a God to have absolute morals, not the actual existence of a God. I could write a book tomorrow with differing moral absolutes and a fake God backing it, and what would be the difference?

Intarweb and Astraline, you have made lots of interesting points, and too many to address individually at the moment, so forgive me for this rather broad overview. You're right insofar as that our sense of absolute morality is nearly always driven by religion. I won't presume that you're both absolutists personally, but a point i'd like to address it that the concept of an absolute right and wrong does lead to a slight problem. Homosexuality, in the Bible is an absolute wrong, a violation of God's nature, if you will. The fact that it seems to have stronger reasons against it on a scientific principle I suppose is irrelevant. Yet, is it always wrong to allow someone to make love to a member of your own sex? According to the absolute right of God, yes, and yet homosexuality is becoming more accepted in society today. Is it always wrong to put a terminally ill patient out of her misery at her own request? Again, with your absolute right of God, yes it is wrong, but most non-religious people would value the right of control over one's life as a trump card to any religious concept of the sanctity of life. Surely consequentialism and utilitarianism offer a more satisfying conclusion to your absolute right and wrong? To say that I have no reason to judge someone's actions to be right or wrong in an abstract sense is I suppose fair enough. But in a practical sense, I believe the rule of law established by a democratically elected party is a good enough substitute for me. As Tigra pointed out, laws have been around as long as mankind has existed, with their laws often rooted in religion. Very few people worship the Roman Gods nowadays, yet their right and wrong could still be considered valid. Who gave it to them? To say God ingrained it in us all is a completely unproveable/disproveable apparent trump card. Communism establishes absolute rights and absolute wrongs based not on religion but on what is right for the good of the country. In that sense, patriotism could be considered an absolute. "There's was not to reason why, there's was but to live and die" was a reasonable summing up of the view maybe a hundred years ago on the role of soldiers. Conscientious objecteurs were looked down on with scorn. In summary, my point is, morality exists throughout society and the natural world, with or without religion. Therefore, it must be a concept that can be explained without religion. Absolute morals probably can't be explained without religion, but they are not necessary to lead a respectable life.

Ah yes, the old Pascal's wager theory. Honestly, I think it's sad that people who follow that principle believe in a God who doesn't reward questioning, or reason, or logical. Merealy blind faith to cover one's own backside. Please, please, please, don't go down that road. Live a full, rich and happy life. It's what you deserve as a human being, follow the rules of the law and surely, any God worth his salt would reward you for that. Ever worked on a Sunday? Then you're going to hell. Oh, any by the way, I suppose in a sense i'm trying to convert you to atheism, betraying your God. According to the Old Testament, you should kill me. Haven't done that yet? Oh dear it's hell for you. Don't ever worry about going to hell, worry about going to jail. One is real, the other isn't. The point is though, that your beliefs and dogma, do effect me, and so many others.

yeh exactly, atheists only dont kill other ppl because their afraid of getting caught by the police. if it wasnt for living in a society with laws they would have no one they r accountable to and so they could just kill ppl as and when they wanted. god is the only reason to be good. atheists only have those morals because of god and growing up in a society which god rules over. Read my response to Astraline's comment, but i'll highlight the main point. It's funny really, of the 25 most dangerous states in America, 76% are religiously active, fundamentalist Christian states. Three of the five most dangerous cities in the US are in Texas, the twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are deeply religious, and of the twenty two states with the highest rates of muder, seventeen are renowed for being religious.

You're right. But that's also coming from someone who has grown up in a society that has been controlled by Judeo/Christian beliefs for over a thousand years. Where/why do you think you have come up with those ideas? Everyone here agrees that you shouldn't harm other people because everyone here grew up in a culture dominated by Judeo/Christian values. Elsewhere in the world where other values dominate the culture (sometimes similar, sometimes not) that is different. Partly true, but the roots of morality are not exclusive to religion. Various studies and tests (the details of which I can give you) have been conducted on non-religious tribal groups in various countries, with little to no contact with the western world and religious groups in western society. When it came to making some kind of choice to do with saving someone's life, the religious groups and the non-religious groups had similar results. Morality has it's roots in Darwinism, and you don't need religion at any point to be have a moral concept. Indeed, morals change over time. Pioneers of morality in their time (Lincoln) were actually semi-racists. Morals advance and change over time, religion is holding them back in many cases. Are you saying that we should only follow rules because there's a God to punish us if we don't? Are you saying in an atheist society there would be anarchy and riots, with no reason for the law to exist? I'm an atheist, but i'm not a nihilist. If morality is rooted in Darwinsism, clearly the next step up from that. Our morals are not purely for the basis of the survival of the fittest, yet we're beyond that. It's pretty obvious really, animals have a sense of morality to further their species, but we don't need to do that anymore, so our morals have evolved beyond that stage, into a more abstract sense. I can't explain it as well as i'd like, but I can refer you to: Why Good Is Good, by Robert Hinde The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer and Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? for a far better explanation. But if you're honestly saying that in the absence of a God you'd commit rape, robbery and murder, then i'm worried. :P

Rubbish. An atheist could draw up an equally valid set of basic rules with no reference to God that work just as well. A sample: There is no religious basis for that lot, quite the opposite, so don't give me that "the decalogue is a great way to live", because that sample above looks to me to be a far better way of living than an ancient tablet. Yeah, I thought you might have that kind of view of him. I've actually seen the man speak and he is very articulate and clearly incredibly intelligent. His ideas may not be revolutionary, but that's not the point, the point is that they are out there and should be taken serious note of. If you're curious: "The chosen people", God ordered his chosen people to kill other tribes early on in the old testament, and to mix the race of the chosen ones with others was a sin, normally punishable by death. Oh that's easy, Noah's ark is just one example of many, but one that we teach to our children as some kind of heartwarming tale. I suggest you read all of the book, not just segments, it's honestly very interesting. He may have an anti-religion agenda, but it's not some kind of prejudice, it's based on reason, fact and logic, and out of a genuine concern for fellow humans who are harmed by religion in one way or another. Besides, his agenda is only words and reasoned debate, not like the many death threats he's received.

Russia adored Stalin, they despised Hitler.

For gameplay: San Andreas. For coolness: Vice City.

Does San Andreas count? If not, one of the Final Fantasy games. Especially the Ending Theme from FFX

Pointless? You could say that about anything if you really wanted to. I could, but it's such a subjective opinion that it's very hard to guage. Okay, I didn't mean pointless, but you'll never get a definite answer.

Ah well, not many clicked this time with me. Nice competition :)

Does it really matter who was "worse"? They were both inhuman, and oppressive dictators who were responsible for millions of deaths yet conversely did a lot of good for their country and showed aspects of a loving and caring nature towards some (Hitler). Debating over who was worse is pointless, you can't measure someone's evilness in such retrospect terms. Hitler actually believed that he was doing the right thing in trying to exterminate all the Jews. Stalin actually believed that the people he purged were a threat to his idea of communism. They were safeguarding an ideal that they thought was for the greater good of mankind. The fact that it wasn't maybe didn't occur to them.

Ditto with my signature :oops:

I'm curious, have any of you read The God Delusion? Dawkins sets my thoughts out quite nicely in that. Anyway, in short i'm an atheist, and believe religion of all kinds is the root to a lot of problems in society today.

A personal favourite: could God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it?

Oh, smooth one Iran. Way to further your "peaceful" cause.