insane

I loved my last two years of high school, and I love university right now.

The bump post was pointless, and there is a similar topic already going.

That doesn't say how man came to know them, or modern society for that matter. Well any answer I give would just end up being classified as my personal opinion, would it not? I believe it was through Christ Jesus; the standard being, above all things, love God and love all people. I'm going to stop posting here - I believe I've made my points a little too vocal, and I hate creating animosity here. I don't think badly of any of you at all, just for the record. My posts may seem that way, but it's not the case ;) that's why i moderate these boards, because i love the users, and I rarely let my personal beliefs get me hostile towards other people (excpet in an argument ABOUT them :P). Mainly because my personal beliefs are that, I should be as loving and peaceful as possible, and not to judge (I don't believe debating is showing judgmentalness, as I don't think less of you for your views) If you wish to continue this with me, just give me a pm.

yeah there is another standart called the law ;) Yes, that is true. But the law just becomes whatever popular opinion is. Right now, 99.99999% of people believe murdering children is wrong. But what if it was the other way around? The law would be different, I believe. That's open to alot of interpretation, and that's where problems come in. It is my personal belief that God's character IS the standard - but I also believe the government's job is NOT to enforce that, as not everyone believes in it. It's funny, because i haven't quoted one Bible verse. All I've used is logic. And all of a sudden all I see is the Bible? If you putting words into my mouth and misquoting what me and Astra is saying makes us naive, then so be it. But you're the one not able to form a decent argument in favour of yourself. I think that is the reason there's "no talking to me". This is where you've just proved yourself wrong yet again. You with your subjective morals wish that I didn't exist. That's not very loving, or kind, or positive. I am very happy :) I've learned that the point of life is to love others - I haven't judged anyone from their beliefs, I've just been defending myself this entire time. If I've come across strongly I apologize, but when people get on my case for trying to live a decent life by obeying my Lord and saviour, it bugs me. By your standards, I am a good person. Why criticize that?

Only to a christian. Yet again, you fail to disprove his reasoning. When did we say that? Truth is, we didn't. Actually we didn't claim that. If atheism is true - read Astra's post again. If atheism is true, then Christians can't be good either. Okay, let's say I'm an atheist. Let's say my own morals and ideas tell me that happiness is me murdering ten children every day. Hooray for personal, subjective morals! Nobody can tell me I'm wrong, because there is no standard of good or evil. With God though, there IS a standard of good and evil, and people that believe it is okay to murder children CAN be punished. I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth. Even if you could prove this, it's really quite irrelevent. Agreed. Pride is discouraged by Christianity. Huh? I believe here you are assuming God doesn't exist, which would be circular reasoning. I was originally Christian because my parents were, but have since looked at it myself, from logic and reason and decided that it is the most reasonable belief.

He was going on the premise that good and evil are absolute ;) if God doesn't exist, then absolute good and evil do not exist. What you call good, what the author of your book calls good, is only reduced to your emotions towards certain actions if God doesn't exist. That was his point.

THIS is the reason I see theists (speficially christians) as arrogant. What an idiotic and offensive thing to say. Then how about you quote the rest of his post and show us how his reasoning is wrong? Oh wait, I'll do it. But I can't show his reasoning as wrong, because it is right. How about we start using logic in our posts? You're just quoting the conclusion of a very logical thought process and calling the conclusion stupid because you evidently are unable to read the process he went through to acquire the conclusion. Here, let me quote his ENTIRE post for you.

No, in rural areas broadband isn't even available, and Bell said that they would make it available over 18 months ago. Maybe contact the Better Business Bureau of Canada :P if you have proof enough.

What makes you think Christians are better than atheists? This is the arrogance that only comes with religion thinking your better than someone else. Do you see me claiming to be better than all christians? There is no god I help people on my own accord not because some rolemodel wants me to. Everything after the part you bolded explains the part you bolded. Your post seems to ignore that.

What about the guy from Our Lady Peace?

Selling real-life items for RuneScape money is illegal ingame and on these boards. Also, this is the offtopic forum, the wrong board for this, even if it were legal.

That's probably because you have nothing to say to them. If I "honour my name", then perhaps you could prove this, by quoting my posts.

So there arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t such secular things as psychologists and topic specific (e.g. marriage) counseling? Secular society does a better job in this area; I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see your point. Again, I never said that religion was the only way to better yourself. Whether or not secular society does a better job is up to you, I guess.

Just running around scavenging on Taris, in KOTOR I. Probably the most memorable/fun times I've ever had playing a video game. Also, all of Ocarina of Time.

That may very well be your opinion, but it isn't mine. There is no such thing as good people, there are just people who like to think of themselves as better than others. People such as you and me. As for the Hitler comment, if fits in pretty well considering a lot of people here claim to be pro-life, so I won't dismiss it as nonsense (w00t, flamebait!). Well your ethical views are consistent with your metaphysical views, I'll give you that :P. Though I disagree with subjectivism and reductionism, I won't go into it - that's another argument for another time.

You conveniently left out the part of religion making better people, something science and your petty insults could and will never do. Except you don't NEED religion to be a good person, have morals and make people a better person. I didn't say that you needed it; I just said that science and insults wouldn't. Have you not been reading my posts? Answer me this one question - do you blame aerodynamics when an airplane crashes - No, you do not. So don't blame religion, when people misuse it. What about the holocaust, communist atheist regimes, these are examples of atheists doing bad things. But am I going to blame atheism? No, I am not. No, I mean that if people truly follow their religion, then they will become good people. Bad actions are not a result of religion, they are a result in spite of religion. Happiness != goodness. I'll bet Hitler was really happy after the first millionth Jew was murdered. I guess that you mean insulting people who are trying to make a difference is how you enjoy not being a good person?

There are people at my school that I am undoubtedly smarter than. Does that mean I don't want to be part of the same school? No, that would be ridiculous. Also in my opinion claiming you are superior than someone shows an attitude that I feel is a very inferior attitude. It's all based on your perception of what makes a person superior; and I can tell you right now, almost everyone I know don't see this attitude of self-superiority as a good thing. And I know that there is a God. Whoopee. While I agree, I think that it is sad that instead of trying to do something these problems, you'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw insults at them. That's hardly making a positive difference. This just goes to prove my point above. If you really enjoy insulting people and pissing them off, then more power to you, I guess. But can you really look upon your actions and call them good, and expect people to agree? You conveniently left out the part of religion making better people, something science and your petty insults could and will never do.

Lockefied.

Principle vs. application. Just because religious people are bad doesn't mean religion is bad (when a plane crashes you don't blame aerodynamics, do you?). Also, this is completely irrelevent to God's existence.

What I'm just wondering is how many fossils we uncover that are definitely intermediate species as compared to fossils that are extremely similar to species that exist at the present? That's why I said Darwin's claims wouldn't invalidate evolution :P I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that in saying nothing once existed in my premise I'm assuming God exists? Interesting stuff. Maybe faith isn't a good scientific excuse :P or a bad proof. But it definitely has its advantages. Sorry :P

My pursuit of happiness is murdering 10 children every day. If religion denies this to me, then religion is horrible!!! Hooray for using an extreme example to show someone how faulty their logic is... Two wrongs don't make a right. It has a little to do with disproving evolution - it just makes me ask why people need to fake fossils if the evidence is so abundant? Darwin himself said that the fossil record would need huge improvements for evolution to be proven - unless Darwin was wrong, which wouldn't invalidate evolution. No, I assume that the premise is nothing. I'm not saying there is no premise. Also - you once said that we cannot get from the supernatural to the natural, and I disagree with that. I agree that we can't go from natural to supernatural, since that violates cause/effect - but God, who is above and superior to matter, can definitely create matter. That's why I believe God could have used evolution to create us.

The cambrian explosion is in no way evidence for the "god put it there" theory. If that was not what you were suggesting then yes, I have misread your argument. Now that I think about it, it's more of a proof against evolution than for God. Evolution teaches gradual changes. With the CE you have next to no (or myabe just no) life, and then all of a sudden millions of fossils appear in a very very short time. That's counter-evolutionary.

It defies the laws of casuality - you can never get more out of hte conclusion than is in the premise. If nothing is in the premise, then you cannot get anything more than nothing in your conclusion. It's like saying 0 + 0 = a universe. It just doesn't work. God, by definition never "came" into existence, so God isn't something "coming" from nothing, because God never came. Of course it's convenient, but it's convenient because in my opinion, it's true.

One could ask the exact same questions about God. Lack of evidence is not an argument for the opposing idea unless that opposing idea has some evidence of it's own to back it up. I believe I linked you to the cambrian explosion. That's definitely positive evidence for an opposing idea. I wasn't saying evolution wasn't a valid theory, I was just saying that there isn't enough evidence to support it yet. There isn't any other way to show that there isn't any evidence other than, showing that there isn't enough evidence. I think you were reading into my motives too much. Moreover lack of evidence is definitely evidence against the theory IF the theory states that there is evidence. There is proof for God's existence, already shown by Astra (nothing can come from nothing, therefore something has to have existed), but it's philosophical - clearly science cannot be used to prove the non-scientifical. And if you're a fan of the scientific method being the only way to determine truth - then try testing hte scientific method by the scientific method :P it's a self-refuting claim.