insane

Science is completely amoral, and is simply a method for discovering truth. As Lateralus said, the Crusades might be a perversion of a modern, more liberal interpretation of the Bible and Christianity but at the time they clearly had religious justification. Who are you to say who's intepretation of the Bible is more correct? Surely it's highly subjective (within some bounds)? Actually the entire reason I brought up Hitler/social Darwinism being responsible for the holocaust was because of the oft appearing "Christianity is responsible for the Crusades" argument. It's interesting to note that many people think it's okay to blame religion for a slaughter started by religion applied in an incorrect, immoral way, but at the same time turn around and disagree when someone blames science for a slaughter started by science applied in an incorrect, immoral way. That's putting science on a subjective pedestal.

Social Darwinism is based on Darwinism, meaning it is not completely different... it is in fact natural selection from a social angle, quite similar if you ask me. While Hitler wasn't an atheist, he certainly didn't prescribe to any one religion and he was a social Darwinist. Atheists in the Nazi regime also rose quickly in the ranks (source) . It would appear that a largely atheist and entirely secular regime that believed in social Darwinism started world war 2 and used it to justify the murder of six million Jews. I didn't mean for this to become a massive tangent; my point was that during our societies' "wonderful" secularization has come more bloodshed than ever before... it was just a sidenote, not meant to be argued against. Yep, I wasn't arguing for social darwinism being the main cause, I was arguing that religion had little or nothing to do with the most disgusting display of human action in history. I just thought it was a little ironic that one of religions biggest proponents was used as justification. If you mean it was motivated through his antisemitism, then sure... but that's more of an anti-religious motivation. Hitler wanted to keep a religiously neutral state (source)

I don't believe the US or religion had anything to do with the start of any of the major wars in the 20th century. All of the US vs. Muslim stuff has taken place in the 21st and is completely minuscule to the bloodshed occurring in the World Wars (which were secular in nature... World War 2 being started by atheist Darwinists, actually). Note that you left out my example of the holocaust and WW2... the bloodiest, most disgusting show of injustice the world has ever seen, justified by Darwinism.

That's the thing though. You find the scientific method obvious. I find God obvious. You believe God needs to be proven. I believe the scientific method should be proven. Neither can be proven (you can't test the scientific method by the scientific method...). We're just different creatures, you and I. No apology necessary; in my experience I've found "intellectuals" (aka. atheists) to be extremely arrogant... I know if I didn't believe in God I'd probably think alot more highly of myself. Belief in God requires quite a bit of humility, wouldn't you agree? I think acknowledging that there is a higher purpose that you (science) can have no bearing or effect on would be extremely humbling. It's also interesting to note that you used the term *critical* thinking. Have you ever known a humble person to be critical?

I know, mate. Just disproving the idea that religious people necessarily reject science. Obviously Newton isn't representative of all believers, but that wasn't the point I made. I think what happens is that as intelligence rises, tendency to see faith as valid drops. Just like as faith rises, tendency to see intelligence as valid drops. That might be why Christians (faith-believers) might be perceived as unintelligent and why scientists (knowledge-seekers) may be perceived as faithless. What I don't agree with is scientists that reject faith when their entire system (the scientific method) is taken on faith. I also think Christians that reject science as unbiblical are in the wrong - the Bible has nothing to do with science or knowledge - it's a book describing the character of God, to be read as something else is erroneous. So I would agree that intelligence decreases the chance of believing in God, but it's not because belief in God is unintelligent - I believe intelligence decreases belief because intelligent people tend to be more arrogant and are more likely to reject ideas that make themselves seem inferior. What's also interesting to note is that while people often blame religion for wars and world turmoil, the 20th century, seeing a massive rise in atheism and secularism, was the bloodiest and most turmoil-filled century our history has ever seen. If religion caused the crusades (crusaders were religious), then Darwinism caused the holocaust (Nazis were Darwinists).

You clearly don't understand the metaphorical idea behind the heart. I think for most people it would be their heart. People always say they're going to be rational and take love slowly, but as soon as anyone meets someone they fall for rationality is the first thing to go. I say heart.

I mean how can you state "I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same." this as true? Why should expressing our freedoms not limit the freedoms of others?

Hit the nail on the head. What is this idea grounded in?

No, but those people seek help and are generally pitied by people for that reason. It's not like there's "sterile pride day"... people don't like finding out that they're sterile, in fact, it's a very sad thing - their body isn't working the way it should. So going by your analogy, gays should be pitied, not celebrated, and seek help for their condition. If there are no real standards in nature and everything is chaotic then stop giving homophobes a bad rap; afterall it's just the standard they've made for themselves.

How do you figure? Oh, and Nadril - I wouldn't make a blanket statement like "two homosexuals kissing is wrong", or something like that. God makes it clear in the Bible that the heart behind the action is just as important as the action itself, thus the intentions behind the kiss, etc are important. So it's possible that two heterosexuals kissing would be seen as wrong in God's eyes as well, given their heart attitude behind the action.

You're both not understanding. You can say it's old and it's just a belief all you want but if the Christian God exists then the Bible will remain true no matter how old it is. Ambassador gave an example where things (math, science) remain true regardless of time. You can't just say the Bible doesn't apply because it's just full of beliefs, that's a self-refuting statement. If things don't apply because they're merely beliefs then your beliefs don't apply to me, including those just stated.

Just for the record, the church doesn't forbid homosexuals from marrying; the church forbids homosexuals from marrying each other. Any gay man can marry any woman he wants, just like any straight man is forbidden to marry any other man. It's not a question of gay rights, it's a question of the definition of marriage. Yeah, God must have intended people to conduct nuclear warfare too because he didn't stop the Americans from dropping one on Japan.

Say there's two male-female couples. Couple one contains a heterosexual male and female. Couple two contains a homosexual male and female. You have to bet on one of the couples promoting their species through reproduction. You're telling me that you don't obviously bet on couple one? If you do bet on couple one, you're telling me that couple one has an evolutionary advantage over couple two as their genes are passed onwards and the species survives. Of course couple two could reproduce, but are you going to bet on them over couple one? No. It totally impairs it. Maybe not to the extent that blindness impairs vision (although 70-80% of blind people can be cured to an extent), but no homosexual animal (besides a human) is going to reproduce. The only reason a homosexual human would reproduce cannot be explained in natural terms. Therefore I don't see how, from a purely evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not seen as a defect when the heterosexual gene (if one exists) is much more conducive to the survival of the species? That's like saying all ears have the defect of not being able to smell. It's just a stupid statement without any relevancy to this debate.

Blindness is an impairment. Explain how homosexuality is an impairment. Blindness is a visual impairment, and homosexuality is a reproductive impairment. Surely from an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality can be viewed as a defect?

That's more of a departure from normal species functioning though. Homosexuality is just a variation of an attribute of normal species functioning. What do you mean by "normal species functioning", and how does it apply to homosexuality and not blindness?

Why do people continually say crap like this? It isn't 'unnatural' to be gay. It happens in nature, both wild and civilized, and by the dictates of nature, i.e. by biological and environmental factors. Would you say it's natural in the same way blindness is natural? OT: As long as homosexuals don't sue churches for not allowing homosexual weddings in their buildings, then I don't really care. I don't see the point of any marriage other than a Christian marriage anyways.

Hilarious. :roll: Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy). Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty. I don't understand what your problem is. If the media defines beauty, then people without media access should have no definition of beauty. The reason this sounds so stupid is because you and I both know that although the media has a large effect on what people find beautiful, it does not set the definition.

So universal beauty ideals common for every culture is a myth, it's all dependant on what the media tells us? Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P

Because of downloading music most music stores (at least in Canada) have started to sell more than CD's and DVD's because they would go out of business otherwise. I know HMV in Canada has taken to selling iPods and Wii/Xbox360 games.

Looking at your picture and the fact that you want to gain muscle is telling me that you are going to be gaining weight, not losing it.

Christ insane, you make it sound like no one has ever lied to hopefully get a shorter sentance. The fact is is that mortal kombat DOES NOT HAVE WRESTLING MOVES IN IT. It's a lie and it is a bad one, I'm amazed you can't see that. If you're going the avenue of lying to make a shorter sentence, then it would further support my point. Saying "wrestling moves" is much shorter than <>. The paper wouldn't go through with actually writing out the specific names because it would be a waste of column space and most readers wouldn't understand. Hence "wrestling moves". Did you not see where I quoted the actual criminal as saying she was practicing mortal kombat moves? Or is the criminal lying for absolutely no reason as well?

The coiner of that phrase has obviously never studied logic or more specifically the complex cause. It's not like these two were going out to murder a 7 year old girl any way they could. They said that they were practicing mortal kombat moves and she died as a result. Just like it's actually people using guns that kill people, it's these people practicing mortal kombat moves that killed this girl. Source

Yeah, that's why in a longer article they quote the female killer as SAYING they were intentionally imitating mortal combat. Because mortal combat had nothing to do with it and video games are never the cause of any negative action. Gosh, you guys are the bias ones, you didn't even do any research before blaming the article as bias. Ridiculous.

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that? You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one. Actually, he can't honestly make the claim that I am a theist at all, for I have not claimed to believe in any god. To be a theist, you have to believe in at least one. :lol: And you can't honestly make the claim that I am an atheist at all, for I have not claimed to lack belief in any God. The quote that Korskin paraphrased is one of the stupidest quotes I have ever read. Further, going "one god further" is not as simple as you think. Going from two gods to one god, is a LOT different than going from one god to no gods at all, and you all know this. The entire quote is rubbish.

His/her point is that "sex selling" is detrimental to human sociology.