meol

@michel555555: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/ It's not surprising how much the bill is hated considering what some of you believe is in there. And congrats to the Americans. Hopefully this will work out well for your people.

Marriage wasn't invented by the Christians, nor by the Jews. Hindus, Zoroastrians and Native Americans have all had marriages. Now, disregarding that fact, marriages have evolved with time into a social contract that even separates itself from religion (to a certain extent). While it hasn't lost all religious meaning, of course, you can't deny there is a purpose and a reason behind Atheist Marriages, too. Besides, governments should cater for the freedom of all peaceful religions -unless you want to argue in favour of theocracies. If some liberal congregations want to unite homosexuals in marriage, then, at the very least, they shouldn't be stopped by laws and the government itself. And the government shouldn't be subjected to religious morals either. There is a strong case for at least secular/civil homosexual marriage, don't you agree?

But doesn't the policy also mean that education costs will also decrease a lot?

Care to explain yourself a little more?

Metaphor. First person is saying that his friend thinks of being able to believe or to disbelieve is what makes us what we are, so it's pitiful when a person makes a show of being able to do one but not the other. Of course, the real question is why would someone need (religious) faith and dogma to be a whole person?

It seems you are mixing the two different concepts of evolution and social Darwinism. One simply explains how species have come to be, while the other encourages eugenics (human artificial selection) based on the concepts of racial superiority. I think you'd find current evolutionists and mainstream atheists fervently opposed to the latter concept. Besides, you are saying evolution says less adapted species are lesser than the "more evolved" ones. But keep in mind that the HIV is just as successful as the human being on an evolutionary sense.

Back when I was a kid I used to have many nightmares, but one day I manage to wake up in the middle of the nightmare. Of course, that was really liberating because I thought no dream could scare me anymore. Some days later I was having another nightmare, and I tried to wake up as usual, but I couldn't. It dawned on me that the nightmare wasn't a dream, and I was completely sure it was real. It was one of the most terrifying moments I've ever had. :shock:

I sincerely thought you'd realise by now that posting on a topic keeps bumping it. :-| Please don't bump old topics without a meaningful contribution. And please don't keep bumping rule breaking threads. Report them instead.

Yep. Apparently, IQ correlates with monogamy in men, liberalism and atheism. Without much comment, here's the whole study if anyone wants to take a look into it and make an informed opinion.

I'll dissent and support an optional gender button/figurine/field. At least in OT, that's much more needed than a RS status, for example, and I remember enough people (usually girls) adding it to their location. Not only would it help people avoid the constant "I'm a girl!!", but it should also, God forbid, make women visible on the Internet. :razz: I haven't really seen much sexism in these forums, so I doubt that would be an issue. I really disagree with an age field, though. Too much prejudices concerning age already go around, and nobody needs to know your age when referring to you (as opposed to gender). [Edit] Huge thanks to Shadow for proving my second point below.

I specially like the fire and the staff. The eyes are weird though.

Are you using the Lo-Fi skin? The spoiler thingy is an issue with that particular skin. Or maybe you have Javascript turned off?

Even with such ridiculously high temperatures, the energy involved in the collision is relatively low. In one of their videos they said such a collision had an energy of about 6 µJ (around the same as 5 collisions between flying mosquitoes). Heat is energy so my little knowledge base of science seems to tell me that the more heat the more energy so with high heat you get loads of energy. But again, I've always been terrible at science. The thing is, heat isn't the same as temperature. To put it simply, a cup of hot water and a large pool filled with hot water may have the same temperature, but the pool has much more energy stored as heat. I hope that makes sense.

Even with such ridiculously high temperatures, the energy involved in the collision is relatively low. In one of their videos they said such a collision had an energy of about 6 µJ (around the same as 5 collisions between flying mosquitoes). I've actually heard that American physicists are trying to do as many experiments as possible before the LHC gets fully operational and, well, makes all US particle accelerators obsolete.

That might as well be true. It's just that some people seem to think being gay is a lustful choice with the only "purpose" of being sinful and promiscuous. But we are getting waaay off topic. :razz: I'd like to argue against the very existence of souls. Without them, most religious belief systems would be quite shaken. Now, most religions are based on a beliefs of life after death, and they very often assume there's an immortal soul that actually is the real person trapped inside a mortal body. A Ghost in the Machine, responsible for your identity, personality, and behaviour (or am I wrong?). Thus I ask of you, do you have a soul? What does it do?

Just found an old picture of myself, when our play was over.

That sounds awfully weird to me, but let's suppose you are right, and those girls really turned to lesbians. That still doesn't say anything about everyone else, and how their homosexuality came to be. Again, I'll argue that even the most cruel of violences and state oppressions haven't made gays disappear, and that that shows homosexuality is not a choice, at least for a large amount of gays. Or we could even agree hypothetically and think, just for a second, that homosexuality was a choice. That still wouldn't justify any discrimination and it still wouldn't be a good argument against LGBT rights or marriage equality, would it?

The weather got much sunnier and warmer all of a sudden. Is this really Spring? :o

The Second law of Thermodynamics says that a spontaneous process in an isolated system will result in an increase of entropy. You can still have entropy reductions in a system (like a cell, or a zygote, or a planet) as long as its surroundings have an equal or larger increase in entropy. For instance, the growth of beings isn't spontaneous: you have a great deal of machinery and energy used for it. Entropy isn't a being and it doesn't plan how it will increase in the future. The whole concept is much easier to understand on a microscopic level, and escalating it to biology isn't as easy as you think. As for 1230abcz's point, you can imagine cells get randomly destroyed, and the genes inside the cell that reproduces will more likely subsist keep on existing. Even if it's not directly beneficial for the individual to reproduce, you can say it favours the genes on a larger scale.

I completely agree with you both. A complete separation of church of state like that would help a lot, and would support the rights of both gays and religious. It might not fully bring the social acceptance that gays want, but it'd be a huge step forward. However, I don't see this happening this any time soon. I really doubt established churches would be willing to either compromise with the sinners nor to give up any of their power.

There's something we can agree with. Impulse control is part of a good moral code. However, I disagree with "A lot of morals are about controlling desire". Desire isn't something evil by itself, nor is controlling it necessarily good. I'd say the real moral issue behind all the examples you mentioned is not harming others in some way. You said "Just because you fulfill a desire of lust or anything like that, does not mean it's good.", and i want to throw it back to you. Just because you fulfill a desire of lust or anything like that, does not mean it's bad. You still have to explain what you find wrong about "partaking in gay activity" (I assume you mean sex?).

What's a good site for you? I'm on a scientific career, so I'm horribly biased towards scientists, and I'd say that the NASA and the NOAA would be good places to start with. Of course, they'd source the IPCC and side with them so you can't expect a neutral tone from them.

Gays continued to be gay during the Nazi Holocaust, and they continue to be gay in Uganda and Iran, despite plenty of social harassment and violence that comes even from the government itself. Do you sincerely believe it all comes down to a lustful choice in the end? There's a quote that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What kind of support do you have for what you say? Or are you only talking out of first hand experience? -- Partially unrelated, I found this investigation to be relevant.

7/10 (And the manga is hugely better)

In the end, it all comes down to the "guns don't kill people" argument. Truly, extremists are to blame for what they do, but you can't ignore the fact that religion is an important ideal for them to rally under and gather support, and an important tool for the ultimate argument. After all, who cares what other people might say or whom you may kill if you are doing nothing less than the will of a perfect, all-knowing God, almighty creator of your very souls? The same argument is used against equality. God wants this or that, therefore my position is irrevocable. So, the religion too, is to blame, as well as the arrogant who claims to have transcendental and infallible knowledge.