warri0r45

no, as i said in an earlier post it doesent matter if you sin previosly, if you trust jesus as your savior and repent you will go to heaven. now why should you just sin away and say "oh, im going to heaven"? because if you really believe in god then you dont want to cause him pain by betraying his love. Yea, it sounds corny and what i just said will get picked apart by all of you, but thats the way it is. assasin, according to what i believe, yes, you will burn in hell. im sorry, you are a brother as a human and i hate that you might but unless you trust jesus.......................... make fun of me all you want but if no other mentality will make you listen, try this. better safe than sorry. That's the kind of garbage that makes me dislike religion. Believe or perish. Lets weigh up this choice. Believe a book which was supposedly inspired by god with no real proof whatsoever but faith that we are supposed to have or end up in hell. Lovely. Here's a question to any theist who is willing to answer: we are supposed to have faith through the grace of god, correct? Well, so help me god, I've never seen this grace. Ever. And I don't just mean phisically either. Things like uncanny, fortunate, coincidental occurances just don't cut it for me, sorry. I'd rather see fortunate coincidental occurances blessed upon kids in Africa as they seem to have none. But do we ever see this? No, not really. Who, if anyone, ever helps these people? Well, we do. Through our charities and aid work, humans are the only ones which cause and solve all of our problems. Believe or perish... I'd rather devote my life to what I can do for people, not what conclusion I can get for myself in any afterlife. This life is all I will ever know so I suppose I'll just keep doing whatever I know can make things better, not what I believe will. Sorry theists, rant over.

Sad but true (well, the principal is true). Never underestimate the capacity for human greed. :wall: Hey, that greed is responsible for humanity's rise to dominance over the world. Take away greed, you take away incentive to advance. If it weren't for greed, we'd still be sitting in caves, worshipping the sun, and dying at age 20. The want for knowlege is different from the want of money. We are inquisitive beings and want to know more about the universe around us which is why we have advanced so much. Greed just means we have the capacity to take advantage of others for our own gain. Greed is selfish while knowlege is not. You mentioned insentive? Greed is insentive of 3 things only: my, myself and I. Knowlege is attained through the natural insentive of an inquiring human nature.

So your blanket statement about atheists being somehow afraid of something in which they don't believe is ok? Firstly your wrong. Secondly you classified a group with a blanket statement commenting that such an action 'is just plain rude and lazy.' Kinda annoying.

Ever tried complacency?

If absolute morality is dictated by a god as he suggests, then yes, it is as debatable as the existance of god which is essentially unprovable for or against.

Totally agree. Life is all we have and all we will ever know. Dude, I've played video games that make me feel that life is worth something (probably sounds a bit wierd but meh). There is meaning in life wherever you look, if your eyes are open.

I know that, or least I hope that. It's just, dude: Actually its pretty easy not to feel guilty. All you have to do is pretend it didn't happen. If you tell yourself "i never did (so and so)" enough times. you will believe you have never done it. and it will not affect you at all. You think something is wrong with that? Please explain whats so bad about it.. We usually feel guilt for a reason. Supressing it and pretending like it isn't real means you can't deal with real world problems.

Sorry, but we weren't talking about questioning others. I said, "I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?" I said nothing of questioning someone's views, but of stopping them from acting on those views. What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species. I asked why we should be moral without a transcendent standard, you said evolution and survival of the species. If I'm an evolutionary fluke and don't believe that survival of the species is good, who are you to tell me I'm wrong? Ok, I'll agree with you that if there are no absolute morals, no one has the right to act on thier morals against another with differing morals. The whole point I was attempting to express, which it seems I didn't do quite so well, was that evolution could be an alternative for the source of absolute morals instead of god in which case it would be reasonable to force people not to kill each other as it is detrimental to the survival of the species.

Sorry. I'm confused as to the entire point of your post then. But Astra's point is in counter to the idea that absolute morality doesn't exist. You can't counter his point by agreeing with him that absolute morality does exist. That doesn't make logical sense. I was just arguing for an alternative for the source of the absolute morality. Did I ever say that absolute morality dosen't exist? If so, kindly point it out so I can see where I went wrong.

That's not what the Bible says kiddo. How about you only talk about things you know about from now on? Ok, I'm gonna let this one slide and concede defeat. I'm assuming your knowlege of the bible outweighs mine which I'm certain it probably would. The point I wanted to adress is that no, he dosen't 'know.' He can believe he knows all he likes, but that dosen't make it the truth.

So your argument is that you put words in my mouth? I never said anything about "questioning," now did I? Did you read this bit of 'stuff'? Sorry if I didn't adress your point correctly, I'm not perfect. So you're suggesting that there is absolute morality as defined by evolution? Yes, I'm offering it as an alternative to a theists view.

That is absolutely key. Without a standard of right and wrong, better or worse - you have no right to tell anyone that their view that murder is good is unacceptable. I find that interesting. He has no right to question someone elses view? Everyone has the right to question others views because we all do it. If there is no absolute good and evil, then you do not have any right to tell another person that he is doing something evil. He's no more correct or incorrect than you are, so you're just trying to force your own subjective beliefs on him. I was referring to questioning others, not forcing what you think is right onto them. You can't say no one has the right to question something; that's being a dictator. Now I probably didn't adress Intraweb's commet corrctly, come to think of it. Anyway, aside from that, perhaps there are a set of absolute morals and they manifest themselves in the form of our concious which came about through evolution. I'm not saying that this idea is foolproof as I haven't actually done a whole lot of reading into it, but it may be true. No. What we very clearly said is that if God didn't exist, there would be no REASON to follow a moral code. No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species. What if I don't believe survival of the species is a good thing? What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species.

it is human nature to hate, envy, and want to hurt others that hurt you. Human nature is not greater then human conscience, human conscience>human nature. not very appropriate for a family forum. Haha. :XD: :-# O:)

Can I reccomend a ton of psychadelic drugs and/or a psychiatrist?

YES!!!!!!! New news to me. I suspect I'll see it on the TV news today.

A few things: No, you don't know. Your comparing yourself to Jesus Christ. No one knows untill we are judged. That is absolutely key. Without a standard of right and wrong, better or worse - you have no right to tell anyone that their view that murder is good is unacceptable. I find that interesting. He has no right to question someone elses view? Everyone has the right to question others views because we all do it. No. What we very clearly said is that if God didn't exist, there would be no REASON to follow a moral code. No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species.

That would affect his ability to watch tv - wants to watch it; just got be exposed to all this smut :uhh: Other channels are also an option - but that's not the point. He simply doesn't want to even run the risk of ever seeing it on any channel or whatever. It often baffles me why people take such offence to smut or blatant sexuality when we are, in actuality, animals with a pretty high sex drive. Sure, people need to learn to respect women as more than just objects, but I don't think we should get outraged or be surprised if we do see smut on TV. Just as Hicks said, 'there are sexual thoughts, therefore there is playboy.' I would make a topic on Bill Hicks and share some Youtube vids of his killer material if these forums weren't G rated. :lol: #-o PM me if you want me to send you some links so you can see for yourself the genius that was Bill Hicks.

Gday mate. I'm from Brissy. You goin for the Titans this year? I hope they do well.

I haven't read it but I have seen some videos of Dawkins and he seems like a smart guy. His views on religion tend to coincide with mine in many places. Another person whose views on religion I share would have to be Bill Hicks.

It's a pretty silly misconception seeing as they, themselves often label thier own music as 'Rock n' Roll.'

Of course : Roy's playing against South Africa!!! Yeh, who else? :P Who did they drop for Roy? Watson? Probably Hodge. Is it going to be televised in Aus AT ALL? I'd really like to see it if it isn't already underway. :?

I think I've generally made it pretty clear that I have nothing in particular against religion, only a select few followers of religion 'x' who tend to reject all god given logic and reasoning. I'd say I've 'converted' my stace on religion from an agnostic to a plain non-theist. The natural world is more interesting to me. Edit: the only other thing that I would say that I hate about religion (again, this is more to do with the followers and not the religion itself) would be religous parents labelling thier children as a 'Muslim child' or a 'Catholic child' which inevitably becomes true through none of thier own choosing.

I'd say Stalin was the lesser of two evils, although he was still an [wagon]. He industrialised Russia (through pretty sadistic means) which inevitably made them a far better war machine than they would have been, thereby helping us win WW2.

Well, heavy metal is the most awesome music in the world, afterall. :P

Of course E=M, it's just your point was you can't turn mass in to energy, which is wrong. So you tell me that the pencil sitting on my desk is energy? (Thats what your E=M equation is suggesting.). Potentially, yes. What do you think your pencil is made from? My pencil is made from atoms, which in turn are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Energy is holding together those sub atomic particals and holding together the atoms. Energy is released when breaking apart the bonds. This is the potential energy in everything. The actual sub atomic particals/ atoms are not actual energy. If Mass were equal to energy, then energy would be equal to mass. Therefore we would get mass from energy. Can you please tell me how much UV radiation (Solar energy) weighs? Not all digested matter will give us energy. For us to obtain energy, we must digest organic foods. The fact that we break up bonds in the food is what gives us the energy. The potential chemical energy. The matter itself does not give us our energy. What you are purposing is that I could eat my computer and I would get energy. Perhaps i would get an electrical shock, but i wouldn't feel... "Energized". And E=MC^2, is mass times the speed of light squared. It does not mean energy is equal to mass, but the mass times the speed of light squared. There is a complete difference. I'd tend to side with you on this, Lionheart. You know, considering the laws of conservation of mass and energy respectively and that they state energy and mass is neither created nor destroyed. I'd phrase it that energy is merely realised when bonds of all kinds are broken (covalent, nuclear, whatever) as bonds contain chemical potential energy. Or when an electron is excited in the case of electromagnetic radiation or whatever other source of energy there is. The whole duality of EM radiation being waves and particles dosen't help my brain either. :?