warri0r45

I'm just saying if perfection is standard when it comes to creationism (which means to skip evolution and go straight to the present [which doesn't make sense anyways because that is ignoring the possibilities of the future] and also means to skip the growth of knowledge) then that would make less sense than having the existence of progress. The self-achievement thing was mainly concerning other situations dealing with progress, not necessarily about evolution specifically. But since you brought up semantics, I decided to play along. Which brings me to my second point: it is a delusion. The fact is, you didn't choose to make that post. The chemicals in your brain and the stimuli that they were exposed to were what caused you to do it. Just a simple understanding of biology suggests that. So why do we feel self-satisfaction when we come up with a piece of music or poetry which wouldn't exist if it weren't for us being inspired and having the brain chemistry to do so? Because it makes us feel good. Sorry, I took your first post to mean that you find a sense of achievement from being more evolved than other organisms. Why bother playing along if you could set me straight straight away? As for the second point, I did choose to make that post (and this one). Through whatever means, I chose it. It's perfectly reasonable to feel a sense of achievement when we create music or something like that, because it's something we did. These kind of debates certainly have a way of generating a lot of tangents.. I don't particular think so. I guess you can call me agnostic when it comes to this - I was saying you can't make assumptions and try to rationalize things on the level of a being that is higher than you. It's the same as assuming there is a purpose to them. It's a leap of faith. No, saying there's a supernatural being that had a reason to make these nonsensical things is a leap of faith (and a cop-out). Using our knowledge of biology to deduce that a particular structure is nonsensical requires no faith (just to avoid the argument we had before, by faith I mean belief without evidence). All I'm saying is that based on our knowledge of biology, it makes no sense to believe that a deity created life with these mistakes that anyone with a basic knowledge of biology could pick out. Here I am pointing out how life could be better designed, and supposedly a supreme being made it that way? That's the argument intelligent design offers, and it makes no sense.

1) Well, technically any sense of achievement or progress can be classified as a delusion because our actions are all based off of the chemicals in our brain and the stimuli we are exposed to, not really *us*. 2) That is to assume he didn't do it on purpose. 1) That's not a delusion. Delusion is belief in something despite significant contradictory evidence. But that's really beside the point I was making. I don't understand how you could possibly feel that you have achieved anything by simply being more evolved than a bacterium - you didn't do anything, nor did you have any say in the matter. 2) So you think there's a reason for the nonsensical things we find in biology that can be explained by an intelligence capable of creating life itself? A basic understanding of biology would suggest otherwise. It doesn't make any sense to make the recurrent laryngeal nerve loop around the aorta, but this can be explained by our common ancestry with fish in which the nerve took a more direct root from the brain stem to the larynx (or the analogous structure in fish). There are plenty of other examples like this. Edit: Here's a book reference for the recurrent laryngeal nerve if you or anyone else wants a little extra reading.

If we were made to be perfect right from the start then that leaves no room for progress. I think the concept of progress is a great thing. Take games for example. You start on level 1. They wouldn't nearly as fun if you were to start on level 99. That was too cheesy of an example... Allow me to expand. The existence of progress allows us to have a sense of achievement and allows us to be able to say, "Look how far we've come." We were pretty much nothing more than germs at one point, and we've evolved and evolved into something much more complex and advanced. For all we know, we still might be evolving. I find that exciting. I don't like the idea that "here" and what we have right know is the best - I like the idea that things always have room for improvement. I definitely wouldn't want to be born as an elderly man with a ton of experience and knowledge. I'd rather have the ability to start off fresh and explore new things and gain knowledge on my own instead of having it customary for me. Except when it comes to evolution, we didn't achieve anything - it was all nature. I don't see how the old man analogy applies to evolution either. Having said that, I do find it a more interesting concept than "poof" and all of a sudden we exist. As for intelligent design, I think the main flaw along the lines of what sphinxor was saying is that it claims a supreme intelligence capable of creating life itself made a lot of rookie mistakes along the way. That makes no sense.

A lot of things can kill people, though. Car accidents are a prime example. Should we give up cars to save thousands of lives each year? Most people would say no, because they are such a pivotal part of our society and it wouldn't be the same without them. Although I wouldn't put alcohol quite on the same level, I wouldn't want to ban it just because people can die from it. It's just a matter of where you draw the line. I think it's worth remembering that there will always be a small population of idiots who will always manage to tarnish the name of whatever they take part in by being killed from it. Most people can handle drinking and driving a car (not at the same time!) without dying. When it comes down to it, I certainly don't want society to become sterilised in the name of saving every life we possibly can. Life isn't meant to be 100% safe, and it should be at least somewhat interesting. As for the legal drinking age in America, I think they should make it 18. As other people have no doubt said, it makes little sense to allow people to smoke, join the military and vote at 18 and yet say they are not responsible enough to have a beer.

Nice. For a parody band, they're actually quite good. :thumbup: You could reasonably argue that these guys do Cannibal Corpse style death metal better than Cannibal Corpse do. :lol:

Don't you mean An Autopsy by The Faceless? It's from the album Akeldama. Great band. :thumbup: The Infernal Depths of Hatred by Anata (album).

The best kind!

Does anyone else find this as disturbing as I do? How can you justify being complicit with homosexuals burning in hell for being homosexual? As others have said, you shouldn't mindlessly believe something as soon as your church does.

This is a great move forward, and not just because it repeals an nonsensical law, it seems: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-02-voa54.cfm It may even lower the prevalence of HIV in the gay community, because decriminalisation means there is less stigma to come forward to get treatment or seek advice.

I don't get what you mean by this. If you survived multiple accidents then you may believe in some form of divine intervention because the odds of surviving them without injury are micro. Similarly the chances of science being wrong are micro. So both sides have a stack of evidence and the evidence only makes sense if we understand it. For example showing calculus to someone who doesn't understand it and saying 'Look it proves gravity'(I am not an expert on calculus) will not prove gravity to them... Similarly telling someone 'If you believe in God then you will never get hurt again' does not prove God. "If you survived multiple accidents without injury" - that's a big if, and something which obviously doesn't happen all that often. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find some notable examples of very lucky people, but with a knowledge of statistics, a few very lucky people out of a very large sample size isn't outside the realms of reasonable probability. When you're talking the probability of science being wrong, I wouldn't look at it as a whole. Break it down into individual theories and hypotheses and you can judge the evidence for each separately. Conflicting results exist in science. For instance twenty pounds of Gold will displace more water than twenty pounds of a Gold-Silver mix. Because we can conduct the experiment numerous times and there is no emotional factors involved we can gradually deduce what the truth is. Exactly, and as you'd know that's the good thing about science. It can change, and new ideas can be formulated and tested if old ones should fail. I'm not sure about the water displacement thing, though. I'll have to look it up. Common themes in religious experiences don't necessarily mean that there's some truth to them. Some of the visual aspects of them could suggest a common delusion or "psychosis", for lack of a better term. I wouldn't conclude a supernatural explanation if I could test a natural one first. That obviously means that I'm very unlikely to accept supernatural explanations, but at least the natural explanations they come up against can be tested for their validity. The supernatural is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned. But unless you already have an idea of what is true distinguishing between them is impossible. So every judgement is made subjectively. Either that or we judge by the majority... if there is more evidence for one thing than the other, and if we do that then we shut down new ideas before they have a chance to develop. Exactly, the idea with the majority of the evidence supporting it is more likely to be true (though in some cases it's hard to prove definitively). This doesn't necessarily shut down new ideas, it just sidelines them until they prove their worth by being tested. What good is an idea if there's no evidence for it? I just look at it in more pragmatic terms. Science is supposed to progress humanity as well as search for truth, after all.

I don't get what you mean by this. Discrediting religious experience involves more than just being unexplainable by science. Religious people are likely to interpret any odd event in the context of their beliefs, hence why you hear of experiences which seem to validate the religion of the particular geographical area in which they occurred (for example, people have experiences which seem to validate Hinduism in India). Science isn't merely based on the experience of a bunch of scientists observing the world - it's based on controlled experiments designed to remove variables to account for any possible biases in the interpretation of data. This is why I will always trust science as a more reliable source than religion and religious experience. Not to mention that many religious experiences involve a contradiction of what we know to be true through more reliable means, which makes them all the more questionable. Of course, skepticism is good, but there are facts and reliable information out there to be found. That's all I'm saying.

Why just believe something if you don't have any indication that it's true? What's the point besides a sense of emotional comfort and why don't you value the truth above all else? When I profess that I believe in God, it means more to me than just saying I believe in Him. It's like I feel somewhere in my heart that it is true. That is faith. It's believing without seeing. I accept it. Nobody forced me to, I just feel that it is true of my own free will. May sound corny/crazy to someone who doesn't believe (sorry if I'm wrong in assuming you don't), but, that's the best I can explain it, I'm afraid. In essence, you feel it. You don't know it with the mind, you know it with the heart. That's probably where a lot of the "brainwash" theories and such come in to play. Nobody said religion was easy. Let me tell you, it certainly is not. There are many questions, but God is the ultimate being. He cannot be comprehended completely. I believe He 1. exists and He 2. loves me. Sorry if it's hard to understand, but, faith is hard. It's ok, I'm not a Christian or a theist. To be honest I do find it hard to understand why people have faith; fundamentally I see it as irrational because we should only believe things if we have sufficient evidence of their truth. Following your heart is a rather romantic concept, but I can't give it any more credence than a Hollywood love story. I have to say though, it's refreshing to see a Christian discuss his beliefs so candidly without feeling victimised because of the often heated nature of the debate. Good on you, seriously. :thumbup:

Why just believe something if you don't have any indication that it's true? What's the point besides a sense of emotional comfort and why don't you value the truth above all else?

Onset of Putrefaction by Necrophagist (album).

It's definitely a big step forward. I don't really know what more could be said, other than the usual arguments over whether it's too soon/not soon enough. As long as they're doing it in a measured way which will give Iraqis the best chance at a secure democracy, I'm happy with it.

I also find it ironic that such a God flooded the world to kill almost everyone because he didn't like what they were doing. So we have free will, but God is only willing to go with it when he likes what we're doing? Doesn't make sense. In fact, it defeats the purpose of having free will in the first place.

Objects exist whether we perceive them or not, but I would argue that empiricism (sensing the universe) is a necessary prerequisite for knowledge of this existence. It should really go without saying, though... You neglect something - science bases it's propositions on repeated observation and testing, so the existence of natural laws doesn't involve faith. Sure, there may be that minuscule chance that our entire perception is somehow wrong, but science accepts the uncertainty as well. It's understanding and knowledge, not faith. I'm defining faith here as belief without evidence, but on the contrary science demands evidence. Science may require assumptions, but they're a far cry from religious faith because they're based on repeated observations and have to be concordant with all that we know about the world. Anyone can appreciate that gravity continuously works because we all experience it all the time, so it's not a far cry to assume that the force of gravity is a constant. Assumptions like these aren't like the personal experience that "proves" that god is real; any nutjob can claim that they've proven god is real or that they have evidence for some other concept, but that's them misusing the terms or using them too loosely based on highly questionable experiences. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater here - evidence and facts can inform us all about the world. They're not a delusion at all. Even saying that evidence is a delusion is a contradiction in terms if you think about it. Added, a religion isn't merely something which seeks to explain the world. I recommend you read up on what religion is. I can assure you, science is definitely not one of them.

Crown of Souls by Deeds of Flesh (album).

I'm afraid I can't provide a source, you have to take my word. If you can't provide a source then provide a reason, at least.

Ixaxaar by Nox (album).

You immediately convince me. Really, it's all fake. You shouldn't believe everything they put in the liner notes. I know you shouldn't believe everything that is said. That's why I don't believe you. You don't provide any kind of source. And in terms of credibility, I think the other posts make more sense. Well, then you won't believe me. I don't care. You go out yelling Van Halen did that solo, I know better. What makes you think he didn't do it?

Some disabled people can't work. I would seriously question the morals of a society that doesn't take care of the severely disadvantaged. I'll tolerate redistribution of income to an extent, and I do support public healthcare, schooling, and transport. Just the necessary things that a government can provide to its people. As for the dole, I would only support it if there is an emphasis on getting work, perhaps bonuses paid for every job interview they do? I don't really know, but it can't be a free handout with no obligations for the recipient.

Why anyone would want to join PETA in the first place is beyond me. Here's an interesting article I found when doing some research: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

Good point. At least things are turning around in the West, but there is still a lot of intolerance in the world.

Alan Turing as well. It's pretty tragic how such a brilliant mind was persecuted for having a different sexual orientation. Thankfully, times have changed.