warri0r45

What if the first sigularity, i.e. the beginning, was an uncaused cause dubbed 'god.' No being, no spirit, no son, no stories, fantasies, fables or folklore, just an uncaused cause... perhaps.

I'd have to disagree. When you say people, I'm assuming you're referring to atheists at least partly, correct? I'm an atheist. I don't hate christians. That's a blanket statement and is incorrect, basically. There are a key few things that a believer of any faith can do that will make me 'hate' them individually (dislike, more like. Hate is such a strong word). A true atheist, i.e. someone with no belief system, will most certainly not persecute or hate others for believeing whatever they do. Although undoubtedly, there are nutters on 'our side' too.

God is self-existent. I'm thinking if something is self-existent, then nothing existed before it, that could've been its cause. Nothing exists outside it, that could be the source of its purpose. Thanks for the response, although I don't entirely get it. :P Would I be safe in interpreting your response as 'god is self-existant, therefore he is self-purposeful, i.e. the purpose he has comes with him being'? If not, sorry.

And truth and love and goodness and kindness and acceptance, tolerance, fairness. But. People. Just. Can't. Stop. Letting. Peripheral. Crap. Get. In. The. Way. The thing is, if you strip Christianity down to the bair essentials, take away all of the literalist interpretations, I'd almost consider following it. It portrays a beautifully simple message if you can look past the literalism. Now I've made myself curious. Does the bible say anywhere that it should be taken word for word, letter for letter? Answers appreciated.

Neither, its not my battle. My problem is people trying to convince everyone they need to be accepting of homosexuals. Which isn't right. They should respect other people's opinions. I feel homosexuality is wrong, so I'm not going to allow it in my society. Those are my beliefs. Practice what you preach, friend. If you don't like it, don't go around saying it isn't right or it shouldn't be allowed in society while preaching to respect other peoples opinions when you clearly don't care what thier opinions are. Did I interpret his comment correctly? because such a blatant conflicting idea seems too wierd a mistake... If you would read what I was posting you would realize that I was saying that people that think homosexuals should be more accepted should take a leaf out of their own book and respect other peoples opinions. Thats I'll I was saying. Nah mate, I don't buy it. Here you are telling others to be more accepting of those who are of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, which is fine, BUT then you seem to forget this in the next scentence when you say that you're not going to allow homosexuals in your society, which seems to me that you, yourself are not accepting of those who don't fel the same way as you. I don't buy it and doubt anyone else does because no, that's not all you were saying. The jury is still out on whether it's chemical or genetic, defender. Anyone could see it's not all rosy moments in the shoes of a homosexual, but do they just change back to being hetero? No, anyone could clearly see that there is some overriding resistance which is best explained by something beyond will - some sort of chemical imbalance etc. See what I'm saying? I'm not saying it definately is, I'm saying it's more than something that can just be turned off and on at will, like a choice. Ah dude, you're making it sound so simple and trivial. Yes there is a choice, no it is far from easy. Why do you think some people need anger management? It's not so simple like you say it is, clearly.

Dude I just had a look at some of his comedy on youtube. Interesting and strangely compelling.

lol irl Haha, ditto. Lol chse... LOL. :lol:

Neither, its not my battle. My problem is people trying to convince everyone they need to be accepting of homosexuals. Which isn't right. They should respect other people's opinions. I feel homosexuality is wrong, so I'm not going to allow it in my society. Those are my beliefs. Practice what you preach, friend. If you don't like it, don't go around saying it isn't right or it shouldn't be allowed in society while preaching to respect other peoples opinions when you clearly don't care what thier opinions are. Did I interpret his comment correctly? because such a blatant conflicting idea seems too wierd a mistake...

I must say mate, I do applaud you for your last few posts being much less immature and more descriptive of your belief, letting people know what you are really on about and not just leaving us all in the dark and thinking nasty things about you. Sincerely. As for your very last point, of course, well put, but I or anyone else of any faith, creed or doctrine could think exactly the same thing. In terms of beliefs, we all think we are right, otherwise we wouldn't believe them. Perhaps a contributor to my atheistic life stance.

We wouldn't exist without God. However, God would exist without us. God didn't need to create us, he created us to love us. We wouldn't exist without god according to your faith (and those similar), we would according to everything else, so lets leave that one be. My question was (and I'll expand on this now): if god did not need to create us, what is his purpose? Why is he here? As a plee for my sanity, please, no responses such as 'but god's infinite, he dosen't need a purpose' or 'your limiting god.' Guess what guys, we aren't infinite, therefore we can't comprehend the infinite and can only use finite thoughts in a futile attempt to do so. So it's just a throw-away opinion if you want to answer my question, so don't treat it like a dessecration of the bible if you question god or just ask why. Just throw-away ideas, no harm done. (Just to let you know, I added those extra bits because some people seem to sometimes miss what questions are hypothetical and which aren't. Some people, in thier fevered defense of whatever it is that they are defending, tend to spring to 'but, but, but, but no, but 'x' sais, but, but' etc).

What can oppose god's will. I'd always though the answer would be NOTHING. Allowing a figure such as satan to screw with our heads is surely against god's will. What can oppose god's will? It seems satan can. God created everything, including satan. He had a divine plan and now we have a creature of pure evil lurking beneath waiting to screw with our heads. That's just plain wierd, you know, seeing as god's will can not be opposed at all, nor has it ever been or nor will it ever be. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, though (I hope so). Yeah, basically. Does this mean we are like every other animal and should just revert to being anamalistic savages, no. We are still, in my opinion, the most complex and incredible arrangement of matter known to man. Dude, you make it sound so depressing. Our biochemistry is truly incredible and awe inspiring. And you know what? God planned for us to turn out exactly like we are now through an incredible process of life from the smallest of particles, building us up piece by piece. No way, jose', no 6 days for us, it's the perfect creation in the making for billions of years. (In case yall can't tell, I'm appealing to his belief with what I believe is something believeable which does not conflict with science. Imagine the power of a god who can have a plan to make the universe expand at close to the speed of light from a singularity, condense fundamental particles into ions and then atoms which make compounds and then gasses and rocks and then planets and stars and on one of these tiny, tiny planets, complex chemicals interact and begin to self-replicate, joining to more and more to form incresingly organised and effective systems to proliferate thier replication, then these systems become cells, cells become multicellular organisms, these organisms become more and more complex where we find mammalian reproductive systems and nervous systems which gives them the ability to think, reason, comprehend, search, find, interact and react. And then... us. Now THAT god would impress me. ). "It" says? I'm assuming you mean the bible, in which case, not quite, sorry. My actions aren't dictated by a piece of literature and trust me, I would at least think about it when angels start telling me things. :lol: :P

I'm not too sure about this. I'm thinking something like this: Jesus is the truth for everyone - that's an objective truth. Jesus is the truth for me - subjective truth. "Jesus is the truth for everyone" does not equal "Jesus is the truth for me" If a subjective truth equals an objective truth it is no longer a subjective truth. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. God never came or went, he has always been. He's the Alpha and Omega. The beginning and end. God's existence has nothing to do with us. I'm interested to hear your reasoning there. God existing is the precusur to our creation, therefore him existing leads to our existance, which has everything to do with us, right? Here's a question: what is god's purpose? Was it to create us? If so, then indeed, him being here has everything to do with us. I'm just interested to hear your reasoning there.

Metal Gear Solid 2 on EXTREME difficulty. Jesus Christ it took me forever, especially the bosses. Looking back I'm surprised I kept on persisting with it. Metal Gear Solid 3 was hard on extreme as well but I never got a chance to finish it.

it was set during the 80s I thought 70's. Can't remember. Anyway, I'd have to say GTA: San Andreas. HUGE map, gang warfare is pretty cool, story and missions are fun, it's more dimensional - especially with that huge frikkin' mountain you can do jumps off etc, the harrier jet is cool and it has casinos. :-w \

She's alright although I wouldn't know enough to pass an educated judgement. As it stands I can't really see any harm being done by having a monarchy and the commonwealth rules, too (mainly because Australia own at the commonwealth games :P ).

G'day mate. Where were you when I was suffereing through two years of maths B, finishing last year? #-o :P Anyway good on ya for helping I suppose, I know how hard maths B can be.

Oh, ok. No worries.

Where'd you get that from? :?

I am an atheist, aka I am not theistic. I wouldn't choose number 2, to be honest. I could never just rule out a creator entirely although I know I shouldn't let a whim control my life as it is not a known. It's a belief and not something I'm into nor something anyone should treat like a piece of reality. You can have faith, you can believe all you want, no worries. It's just that points such as yours, that there are many belief systems and only one (or none) can logically be correct, lead me to conclude that none of these belief systems should be taught or percieved as a known truth or as part of reality. It's just not sensible; nonsense, and has shown to be potentially harmful (case in point: 'god hates [bleep]s'). The takehome message from my post is this: Don't stray from your belief system just because of what said, what you believe is totally up to you due to the beauty of individuality. Just don't blur what is with what could be. Spirituality is a gift, don't ruin it by treating it as a message to reject another gift: reality; logic, reasoning, truth. Anyway I'm done. Be gentle.

Perhaps because it has something to do with thier biochemistry. Do you ever hear of a full homosexual (not bi) just saying 'meh, I've had enough of guys, time to change teams'? No, all you generally hear is 'it's something which I just feel and can't control.' *breaks down in a crying heap due to the fact he's still homosexual dispite years of taunts and misunderstandings about the way he feels* All reasoning of cases of homosexuals I have seen in real life or in documenatries would suggest it's not something you can just turn off and on like a tap, dude.

National average right now is $2.60...I dunno' what it is right here at the moment. I haven't gone to town for a while, and I haven't had a car for months due to some redneck imbred [developmentally delayed] hitting me and not paying for it. Sooo, yea. :D I personally don't give a crap about Anna Nichole Smith and can't understand why anyone would. She did drugs and died...End of story. She's like Paris Hilton...No talent, yet everyone cares about them. Paradox, anyone? I do kinda' care about who the father of her kid is, though. I know it doesn't matter at all and isn't important news, but that Howard Stern guy KNOWS it isn't his, and that Larry Berkhead guy seems pretty decent, so I'm hoping it's his, and I hope he gets a slice of that fortune of Anna's. Unfortunately, REAL news doesn't pay well...Apparently. I did a little calculation and us Aussies pay TWICE as much for petrol (or 'gas' as you guys call it. Kinda funny when it's a liquid :P ). Although factoring in our dollar compared to yours (hovering around a high at the moment of 80c Aussie per U.S. dollar) it's a bit better than it sounds.

There are two problems with this. The first problem I will address explains the problem of the is/ought gap - the second problem is a symptom of crossing the is/ought gap. Problem 1: All you did was explain why it is illogical to kill other people if we want to survive. When we talk about morality, we are talking about "right" and "wrong," - "good" and "bad." You have no proven your major assumption in this point to be logically true, and that is that our survival "right," or "good," and therefore actions that promote are survival are moral. It is a fact that species strive for survival, but it is not a fact that this basic instinct is a good thing. You are making an assumption about the basis of your morality, and then logically proving other events to be moral. I want you to define "good" and therefore, "moral" without any assumptions - entirely based on logic. Hint: It can't be done. Problem 2: The second problem with your scenario is a symptom of breaking the is/ought gap. In an attempt to logically define good, you assumed that any natural and biological trait is a good thing. Because of that assumption, you have now defined pedophilia to be a moral act. Do you agree? I'll make no bones about the fact that my skills in philosophy and ethics aren't the best, but I'll continue to give it a shot. You say that it is not factual what is good and what is bad. I agree, I suppose. Does anyone really decipher 'good' and 'bad' with facts, though? If you believe in absolute morality, there are good things and bad things. Can you prove this with facts? Well, not really, right? It is a fact that species strive for survival; it is an opinion, although highly objective, that survival is a good thing. Let's just say that person 'x' believes in an absolute model of morality which states that survival is, in fact, good. But is it really factual just because it sais so? I, or anyone, can propose that they have the true set of absolute morals claiming that a diety told them so or that they are the deity. Compare thier set of morals with, say, the christian set of absolute morals (if you believe there is such a thing). Whose is right? You can't tell because they are both claiming the same things i.e. that thier set is the one true set devulged by a higher power. 'Facts' don't come into morality. P.s. No, I don't agree that pedophelia is a moral act nor do I agree (which is what you're getting at, I think) that all things natural are good. Evolution isn't perfect; it does make mistakes and always will. Those mistakes will also always be weened out in subsequent generations.

The article was fallacious because the line about "direct reasoning" - which is the foundation of his entire point - does not offer any logic to it, which counters his entire point. I will back down from this argument if you can present me with one moral thought that comes from only logic. However, my guess is you will avoid the question entirely because it is impossible to do such a thing. The reason I have not explained why it is impossible is because you constantly avoid giving me any moral situation where you can solve it with only logic. If you gave me such a situation, I would have the resources to explain to you why the is/ought gap makes it impossible. You searching for arguments against the is/ought gap on Google doesn't mean you're presenting me with a refutation of it - that article was terribly written. Impossible? Let me give it a shot. :P It is wrong to kill others because we, and indeed every species on the planet, strives for survival. Biological fact number 1. Therefore, it is illogical to kill others of the same species as it counters this survival. if we are all dead, then there is no point to anything. What do you think? Nitpick away.

I'm with you there, mate. The bible should be taken more of a book of love and not as some collection of hatemongering anti-[insert anything here] words which some people pick and choose to spread thier seed of hatered. There sure are some really distorted interpretations out there. I believe the bible has flaws and personally I don't believe it is inspired by a supreme being, but christians, such as yourself, believe it is, and that's totally cool. I think we should all take a leaf out of defender's book here guys (agreeing with defender, that's unpossible #-o :P . jk), and spread the message of love, because the bible won't change no matter how much we all outrage at the aparrant out dated or mixed messages within. All we can do is alert people that the messages of the christian faith and the messages of Jesus himself are centered on love and not fear, loathing or anti-[insert anything here].

Did I say I was worried? :wink: :P Slightly annoyed, yes. Worried, hardly. I know the science backs me up and I have no reason to be biased. Here's a shocker guys; if evolution is wrong... I don't care. :P Science moves on, so do I and generally all scientists who don't have some sort of egotistical inferiority compex. Figure of speech :wink: I know, I know, just messin around a bit. :P On a side note, some of the claims creationists come up with to try and refute evolution are just plain funny. Such as thier rather distorted views on population biology; seems they don't know what predation, competition or death are. That seems to be a going trend in some of thier claims - either something follows a definate trend akin to following a mathamatical equation when it clearly dosen't, or when something can be explained by a mathamatical equation, i.e. radioactive decay, it must have been different in the past. #-o