warri0r45

I see your point. :-k You do see what I'm getting at with my arguments through, right? Edit: Actually, I'm looking at a definition of objectivity right now which states "free from biased judgement." I could argue that the majority opinion is the least biased of the whole populations. :wink: I think. :? Nevertheless, it states objectivity can be likened to fairness, which I'm quite sure the majorities view is (as much as can possibly be). reference: The Thesaurus section, no. 3. This might be a bit late, but when I say "objective morality" I mean Truth, the actual Truth that we all strive to uncover. I'm not referring to some other English definition of the word :P . Fair enough, but accoring to the definition I decided to go by, my arguments are founded. :D :P Just for interests sake, what are those absolute truthful morals? Is there a list somewhere I can take a look at? Who would decide which morals are worthy of being on the list? Just a few discussion points. :-w

I agree with Rebdragon here, not all Christians take the bible as the absolute truthful word of god. These people are called conservatives, the opposite, those who take the bible's word as literal fact, are what you call fundamentalists. Now thankfully, there are less Fundamentalists than Conservative types. Conservatives are those who embrace science and accept that evolution is plausible and the world could be billions of years old without blindly rejecting evidence.

I'd just like to say firstly that I, personally, never try to ween christians out of thier faith, thats bending them against thier will and is basically wrong (in my opinion anyway). The only reason I would attempt to disprove the literal meaning of genesis (i.e. evolution is wrong and the earth was created 6000 years ago) is because it goes against credible science. Those that try to prove thier position basically only do so by trying to disprove this credible science, which is done by bending the truth and using shock tactic propoganda. the people who do this, thankfully, are the minority of the Christian faith. So in response to your post, not all atheists feel the need to 'unconvert' Christians. It doesn't give the date God created the universe in Genesis. So taking the literal meaning of Genesis can't be disputed. Unless some how you were able to prove that we all evolved from single cell organisms. Firstly, literary schollars added up all of the 'begats' and the years people lived right down to adam and eve and calculated the world is around 6000 or so years old; some others came up with 10,000 or so. So if you take the bible literally, the going theory is that the universe is 6000 or so years old. Secondly, there is plenty of evidense and sensibility in the evolutionary theory, I'll provide you some sources through PM if you'd like.

I'd just like to say firstly that I, personally, never try to ween christians out of thier faith, thats bending them against thier will and is basically wrong (in my opinion anyway). The only reason I would attempt to disprove the literal meaning of genesis (i.e. evolution is wrong and the earth was created 6000 years ago) is because it goes against credible science. Those that try to prove thier position basically only do so by trying to disprove this credible science, which is done by bending the truth and using shock tactic propoganda. the people who do this, thankfully, are the minority of the Christian faith. So in response to your post, not all atheists feel the need to 'unconvert' Christians.

Do you agree that generally, it is better for a child to have both a mother and a father? I mean, what would you rather have had as a child? I live with a single parent - my dad - and I'd say it's made me a better person. Obviously though, mine is only one case and others would argue otherwise.

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes. It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims. This challenge stands for anyone. This is directed at you now, splat. Radiometric dating. Look it up, you can't possibly disregard it unless you disregard matematics and the theory of radioactive decay. You, my friend are being fed false information from creationists that accuses scientists of being unsure or fabricating evidence. Again, radiometric dating, look it up on a source that dosen't include a religous agenda. ok, i surrender to your brainpower, i give up this thread with 2 posts, but i still believe jesus is my savior. if only because i am entitled to my own opinion, so dont hate on me and i wont hate on you. Wow, that was easy, but this isn't about winning or losing. This is about freeing people such as yourself from false information propogated by a minority of religous institutions that want nothing more than to prove thier own agenda by any means necessary, even if it means taking quotes out of context and bending science. For the record I am not against any organised religion. If you believe that Jesus is your lord and saviour, no worries mate. All I'm about is nullifying false science and misconceptions about the age of the earth and evolution. There are still many question which science is yet to answer, some which religion attempts to explain, which is totally OK with me. But when religios fundamentalists (the overwhelming minority) try to bend and warp science dishonestly to thier own means, it just dosen't sit right with me.

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes. It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims. This challenge stands for anyone. This is directed at you now, splat. Radiometric dating. Look it up, you can't possibly disregard it unless you disregard matematics and the theory of radioactive decay. You, my friend are being fed false information from creationists that accuses scientists of being unsure or fabricating evidence. Again, radiometric dating, look it up on a source that dosen't include a religous agenda.

I think education is crucial, but the currently educated (people with phd's etc) should work on the climate change issue. The incentive of 30 million dollars that Richard Branson threw into the melting pot just recently is a step in the right direction although It's kind of sad that (most likely) people will only try and resolve the issue because of the money on offer.

Interesting point on that last comment. I can't remember the specifics but because gay couples can't be recognised as married in this country (to my knowlege) then both of the couple can claim centerlink (government aid payments) payments and be better off than non-gay couples monitarily. Now this almost defeats logic as there are more battling single parents and low income couples that don't get payed as much as gays do by the government. Not an attck, just an observation. Don't quote my post as factual either.

I'll put money on the opposite. The truth of the trends shows more conservativism these days. Where scientific logic reigns, the stories of creationism are being questioned. Back in the day these stories were undeniable proof. The Fundamental story of creationism is loosing the fight to science. Ironically, the only group fighting are creationists; they're fighting to stay alive. Now having said that, Christianity may never completely die. The question is still open as to whether the universe was created and the basic morality of christianity, although often overlooked by fundamentalists, is very decent in my opinion.

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes. It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims. This challenge stands for anyone.

I disagree with this already. In one sentence I could summarize that what I'm saying is that the simple act of informing young people about the existance of homosexuality can already influence them. Now I'm realistic, so I say we should be informing them about the existance of it and that people should not be discriminating others because of it, etc... However, I am strongly against over-informing people about it and, as a result, making it seem normal by doing so. Allowing same-sex couples to adopt children obviously goes under this too - it has too much negative effect on the child. If you don't see how this could have a negative effect on uncertain people then I don't think it is of much use discussing further about it though, because we'll keep on disagreeing anyway. I agree. Over exposure to adult issues at a young age and in particular homosexual relations can normalise homosexuality to a child, which is damaging to society in much the same way that cramming religion down kids throats is damaging to society (yet not on a biological level, as is the case for homosexuality).

100% sure? Too bad the bible was started about 4400 years ago, and was finished around 15 years ago. http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm Perhaps the morals in the bible were based on the laws back then? They seem to fit together so well. We just have different morals today then they did back then. Perhaps. You could never know the intentions of the authors of it really.

You could make a decent argument that laws were made according to the bible hundreds of years ago, but not today. Today we have more common sense and realise we can be moral beings without religion.

thanks for your help.

It also used to be PROVEN that the earth flat. There is no real proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Lets take a look at some real evidence for a young earth ( taken from here): If you can provide a source which claims the earth is 6000 years old and has no religous connotations whatsoever, I will consider reading it. I have read sources such as the one you posted and they all have an agenda - to protect thier religion by any means necessary. It's not good science and is generally not taken seriously by any respected scientist because of this and because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community see that all evidence gathered over the years points towards the planet being billions of years old. We know that weather systems and water cause erosion of rock. We also know that such process take more than 6000 years. We know these things. It goes against logic and overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise.

On the evolution point, quite the contrary my friend. Read up on it, please. Something just struck me. Why is it that the only people you will ever see trying to disprove evolution are fundamentalists. Coincidence? I think not. Click me. Click me.

Amen to that. :P I have no problem with the bible, only the overwhelming minority of the Christian population who try to defend it's words as fact by trying to disprove things such as evolution. Now how they do this is completely incorrect science; they have thier conclusion already and try and fabricate the evidence suited to support thier argument which not only takes things out of context, but trys to disprove actual honest science. Science never trys to disprove anything or anyone, it merely happens to overwrite old theories when new ones come along. That's why I believe science is above and beyond the tactics fundamentalists use.

I see your point. :-k You do see what I'm getting at with my arguments through, right? Edit: Actually, I'm looking at a definition of objectivity right now which states "free from biased judgement." I could argue that the majority opinion is the least biased of the whole populations. :wink: I think. :? Nevertheless, it states objectivity can be likened to fairness, which I'm quite sure the majorities view is (as much as can possibly be). reference: The Thesaurus section, no. 3.

Iv'e been contemplating how to respond to your ignorance and total lack of compassion and have decided not to insult you as that would bring me down to your primitave dog like level. All I can say is you have earned a spot on the top of my disrespect list on these forums. It's a serious problem here and you seem to think it's a joke.

Hey yall, I'm a technology so I was hoping some of you could help. I'm going to buy /WF06b/1090709-1116637-1116665-1116665-1116665-12924872-78168553.html]this computer. It's a HP Pavillion dv6207TX Notebook with 1.6GHz intel core duo processor, 1 gig ram, 120 GB harddrive and windows vista. Any feedback on the reliability and performance specs of this computer would be greatly appreciated because as all of you may know, a computer costs a lot of money and is a important investment. Thanks. Edited by Ragen - Some people get offended by use of language like that, it's censored for a reason.

The whole point is though, that if there is a creator, it doesn't have a cause, and we simply cannot describe and explain it with the scientific laws in our universe. Thus why no ones view of 'the creator' or chosen diety is correct. You can't really analyse the supernatural with your very much natural brain, eyes, hands, ears and nose.

That's basically all I am saying is that at this point it is impossible to be sure one way or another what is really going on. I'll take that on board, and accept it to a degree (being sceptical of current scientific trends helps science, so I'd never be against it). Tigra actually makes a very valid point about the forests of earth being chopped down like mad. They are the lungs of the earth and cutting them down is analagous to becoming a heavier and heavier smoker if you like (in a way :? ). I'd like to hear your response to this though: There are alot of conflicting interests out there, granted, but I fail to see what kind of profit (the driving factor in corruption) can be made out of telling everyone that we have to cut back on an incredibly wealthy industry (the fossil fuel industry). You may argue that it will scare everyone into buying 'clean green' products, but what do you think is currently making the most money? Environment friendly or environment damaging products? Total no brainer really.

I'm gonna give it a stab. :? When asking for proof, I'm assuming that you're working by absolute objective morality, correct? Otherwise, you just get people dissolving into 'my morals are better than yours' arguments which is basically pointless becasue there is no way to judge or measure subjective morality or sets of morals against each other. So this brings up the question 'what are 'the' absolute objective set of morals'? One could argue that there actually isn't one (unless you provide a source of proof and the list of morals) as morality changes as society changes. An example of this is the incresing acceptance of homosexuals and acceptance of homosexuality as not being objectively morally wrong. So we have established two things thus far; there are no documented set of objective moral values (to my knowlege, see brackets above) and homosexuality has changed from being less accepted to more accepted as morality has changed with it over time. Now what about incest? Well as death by pod suggested in a post above, there are mental sideaffects associated with it and one could thus conclude, according the objective morality by todays standards, that it is morally wrong. Now you could argue that homosexuality has negative effects on others and should thus be considered as morally wrong, yes? One could suggest that this all depends on the number of people on which it has negative effects today. One could then suggest that by todays standards, society (more specifically the majority of society) is 'over it' and sees homosexuals as having no negative effects on thier lives, or each others, as they seem to be happy together in thier particular life choice. But you may suggest that not all incest has negative effects. You may be right, but one could suggest the majority of incestuous cases have negative effects on not necessarily outside parties, yet those participating in the incestuous acts. Not much of a proof, I know and I am also aware that these comments are opinionated and thus to some extent subjective (not fully, as some people may [god forbid] agree with me). I am also aware that I likened negative affects to morally wrong acts. I am also aware I have a problem with mixing up the words 'affects' and 'effects.' PM me the correct usage and I would appreciate it. I would also appreciate if you didn't pick my brains apart as if I were a ethical philosopher (which I am not by a long stretch). :D :P

Yea, can't argue there. Even though they're metal, check them out, Dimebag was a legend.