insane

natural my [wagon]. Do you honestly beleive that at those ages you can posibly think it is what felt natural to them? Sure maybe the 13 year old would fanatasize of it, maybe but realy do it? The only way that would happen is because of peer pressure, not because they thougt it was the normal thing to do. He's just making a joke at the expense of people who beleive in evolution i think :D Close. I was making a joke at the expense of a bunch of different beliefs, but not evolution. Well maybe evolution too, but there were so many other beliefs on the forefront of my mind when I said that, so I'm not sure. I'd post them but it would get this topic offtopic :P

Exactly :) which kind of I guess ends the discussion because we can never reach the synthesis before death :P

I don't understand the comparison of that to Hegel's thesis and antithesis. Could you explain that to me? Well Hegel never actually used the terms thesis and antithesis. I guess it was a mistake to refer to the idea of Hegel's, maybe it wasn't his philosophy. My point was simply, that we can never truly know what it means to be [X], until we have been [not X] (see woman/man example). You might think that this person's life is nothing but pain, but until we've experienced death, we don't know that for sure. The smallest amount of joy that the person experiences could be worth the pain in relation to death, but again, we don't know since we have never experienced the 'antithesis' of life (even though its full of pain).

Can you really just judge death as better because of the lack of pain? There is also a lack of joy from family, a lack of consciousness, a lack of thought, hope, love, happiness. Death lacks so many of the things that we love about life, and you can't just say "what if he has no family, no friends, etc" because again, we don't know what it is to be dead. It's like Hegel's philosophy about the thesis and the antithesis. Do you really know what it is to be a man? Well, if you spent a year as a woman and then went back to being a man, I think you would have a better grasp on what it means to be a man. It's just like life - we don't truly know how awesome life is until maybe we've died - once we know the opposite, we can know for sure. Maybe the smallest joy that life brings outweighs the pain you are talking about. I don't know, but neither do you.

We're all going to die at some point. It's inevitable. What difference does a few years in eternity make? In all honesty I'd rather take my chances. I can't see how you actually addressed anything I said there. What will their opinion be based on? It's like there's two boxes. In one box is one number, and in another box is another number. You are allowed to look at one of the numbers. Now what you're telling me, is that the individual can just "form an opinion" about whether or not the other number is greater or less in value. Is that opinion really going to have any substance to it?

You're way off. It's microevolution + time, obviously.

The entire discussion is obsolete because nobody knows that death is going to be any better. You're assuming that death is better than pain, and that can't be proven since none of us have died.

The problem with macroevolution is that it is untestable. We can't just sit back for millions of years to test this theory and at the moment there is no other way for us to test it.

They were only doing what felt natural to them.

Irrelevant. It says "good Friday" and "Easter Monday" on your calendar, does it not? We celebrate Easter on Good Friday, do you celebrate chocolate day? If not, why do you take the day off work? I don't take the day off work. Then why are you posting on this thread? Yeah, typo/brainslip. Either way, it's good Friday people get off work.

Irrelevant. It says "good Friday" and "Easter Monday" on your calendar, does it not? We celebrate Easter on Good Friday, do you celebrate chocolate day? If not, why do you take the day off work?

Well, to me it is, because I don't believe in Christianity. Am I ignorant for not believing in Christianity? For those who do believe, it will mean more to you, obviously I can accept that and I'm happy for you if it makes you happy, but don't tell me what or what not to believe. That isn't just directed at you, but also the thread starter. Again. Right, so you get a day off work for chocolate? Give me a break. You can pretend all you want that this holiday is what you make of it but we all know that if it wasn't for Christianity, this "holiday" weekend (as you would call it) wouldn't exist.

I'll throw my view on "Christian salvation" into the mix. I believe it's not about living a 'clean' life. There are atheists that live clean lives, and Christians that live [developmentally delayed]ed lives. That can't be it. What I believe, is that it is the Christian's acceptance and declaration that they are unable to live a decent life and need God to extend grace to them. That is the heart of Christianity - we accept that we are helpless people, and accept the grace that God is willing to give us. Thus, I believe a "saved" person is one who realized that they need God to live a loving life and that they need God to give grace to them because we ARE going to screw up. The thing about a "clean" atheist is that, well, they aren't actually clean (from my perspective). Just like from my perspective, a "clean" Christian isn't clean either. The difference is, since a Christian has accepted God's grace and depends on God to live, the Christian is clean in God's eyes because the Christian has accepted God's grace and forgiveness, whereas the atheist has not. As for heaven and hell: Heaven is often described as the presence of God. Why the hell would an atheist complain about not going to heaven if heaven is the very thing an atheist chose NOT to have in their lifetime on Earth? It doesn't make any sense to me. Atheists choose "not God" in their lifetimes, and all of a sudden it's unfair to have "not God" in their afterlives? Hell is often described as the mere absence of God's presence. Fire and brimstone is a description given in Revelation, an extremely symbolic book. When an atheist goes to hell, they are getting what they chose in their lives on Earth - the absence of God's presence. You're getting what you ask for.

I never said that was my assumption. My one assumption was that the Bible is correct. God existing and having x qualities stem from that assumption.

I think I'm done debating with you, as well actually. Everytime you seem to stoop to personal attacks as above. My question was completley valid, as you are still relying on two assumptions. My interpretation of the Bible is correct. God with x qualities exists. Which makes it illogical. That's one assumption. If we assume that the Bible is correct, then it follows logically without assumption that a God with x qualities exists since they are recorded in the Bible, which we are assuming to be correct.

Apparently I need to clarify my point since Duke thinks I'm arrogant and Warrior thinks that I think he's immoral. Duke: When I say "morality", I mean "absolute morality". If God doesn't exist, there isn't an absolute standard for morality, making morality subjective. That's all I meant. Calling yourself "moral", doesn't really make sense as "moral" doesn't have a definition outside your own beliefs. Everyone is moral according to themselves if morality is subjective, making the term obsolete. Warrior: I believe atheists can be moral people, but that is because I believe in God. I believe that if God exists, everyone can be moral, including atheists; I believe that if God doesn't exist, nobody can be moral, including Christians. What's a bad behaviour?

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no? Silence. Assume with me, for a second, if you can (you probably can't), that there is no God, and humans wrote the 10 commandments themselves as laws. Your point, therefore, would be utterly destroyed. No it wouldn't. My point had nothing to do about where I get morality from. My point is completely irrelevant to theism. My point was simply that if you take God out of the equation, it is consistent to take morality out of it as well. Not to mention your argument is based on an assumption, whereas mine is not.

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no?

Simply a recursive fractal. Nothing but repetition. Exactly, and look at the beauty of it. It's nothing compared to the beauty of a changed heart.

Simply a recursive fractal. Nothing but repetition.

I doubt it. What science fails to realize is that improving your circumstance isn't going to satisfy you in the long run. You need to change the inside, your heart. Some gene changes or plastic surgeries are NOT going to give you the "good life". Becoming satisfied in life is becoming satisfied with who you are, not who science can make you.

Religion won't disappear. People look to religion for that "something greater". Science can't give that.

The line looks like a cosine/sine function. If you could figure out a trig function that matches that line you could use integration and solve for the area. *shrugs*

It's different in Europe. In Canada, non-tippers are like the scum of the earth. I normally tip 20%. Then the Europeans that travel here on vacations don't tip and totally screw the waitresses/waiters out of money because their hourly wage is based on gratuities.

We usually ask for separate cheques, but if you end up paying a little extra now and then, don't freak out - just enjoy the fact that you have friends to spend money on and don't get too attached to your bank account :)