warri0r45

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not.

I prefer macadamias to pecans, but pecans are good enough. I think the topical question should be WBWJE? What biscuit would Jesus eat?

[hide] Who said I have a lack of faith? I go to CCD (Sunday School) every week. I'm just looking for something to prove to me that god is in fact real. ~Joe. [/hide] Prove? In fact? You're confused. There is no proof or fact in anyones convictions to believe in god. By the way, that picture is hilarious. :lol:

The murderer committs and is charged with a crime. AFAIK no court has as of yet seen fit to charge the debaters in this specific instance with any crime, which means they havn't comitted one. Until they've been found guilty of something that is actually illegal, they have the same rights as anyone else and should be treated as such, no matter what their opinions might lead to. And silencing them by refusing to invite them to debates doesn't work. Arguments that are allowed to go unchalleged are by far too easy to percieve as arguments that cannot be challenged, which is a lot worse than any "martyrdom" from being under fire constantly. And as other people have said, more rope to hang themselves with. I tend to agree with this and I see some positives to something such as law against incitement of ethnic or racial hatred, for example.

It's sentimental value. It's not just notes and words that sound great, it reminds me of better times. Writing music is like a catharsis. A document of feelings. Sometimes it's hard to explain something so broad like "what do you like about music". I just pick up a guitar or play a CD and I know, no need for words.

No one has actually said anyone is 'Ignorant' here. Stop trying to act like you're a victim here. what now? Where in the world did he even imply that? He's talking more about the general community when it comes to religious topics, not just this topic.

Which is what my parents did, and what I plan to do. It happens often enough. "Ignorant" is the most common insult thrown. Even when insults aren't given, passages are often worded to insinuate it. Vis-a-Vis, I talk about religion and I am accused of being a backwards bigot. Firstly, good to hear that you plan to let your kids form those opinions themselves. It's something that I really value as well. On using 'ignorant' as an insult, I know the connotations but I don't think learning what the word actually means (directed at basically the whole posting community here) would go astray. I've got no qualms with being called ignorant if I in fact am, which I am. I'm as ignorant as can be about economics, for example. Finally, on yourself being called a backwards bigot upon mentioning religion, I think that's obviously way too harsh and that's the kind of flaming people should avoid. I can't actually remember the last time I saw such a harshly framed insult but hey, it's probably just my own ignorance. :wink:

On the surface I'd say being able to express one's views is a fundamental privilege of a modern, western society. It's not without it's issues, though, firstly expressing a view which is contradictory with things that are known and accepted by basically all and secondly by expressing views which incite hate, discrimination, crime, etc. If the first dosen't harm anyone, I'd in principal probably let them express it but encourage debate about the point to flesh out exactly why they disagree with essentially everyone else. Dunno, probably some things to think about on that point. The incitement of hate, discrimination or crime is a no brainer in my opinion, if you happen to be expressing such a view in a society with western values. After all, the whole free speech ideal seems to be a western value in itself.

Considering that the origional post was pretty much stating that teachers should not teach bias, and then someone popped in saying that evolution should not be taught because of the bias as well. It's within the topic still. He was trying to say that evolution should be taught because it doesn't contain bias, considering it is a fact. Funny, I know you wouldn't have responded to Blue that way if it was about any other topic that happened to go off topic, Bari. Sorry, I come from a school district and state where origins are simply not taught. Survival of the Fittest, yes, but not total evolution. To be honest, high school kids are not old enough to maturely debate such things. Same goes for abortion or gay rights. Believe it or not, you aren't fully grown up. Neither am I. I still have three years to go before I get a bloody decrease on my car insurance, because they still consider me a kid. However, Bluelancer's post went a little beyond talking about Evolution in the classroom, and more into religion and politics. And about your last comment. I've always said that when it's off-topic. I, for one, am sick of every other post becoming religion flaming. It seems to happen in many topics, and we've thankfully had a drought. Not old enough to maturely debate such issues? Good point any many would agree, these are delicate issues. If you honestly believe that then you'd endorse never bringing your children up to believe a creation story from a religious text is true yet leave that decision to them when they are old enough to choose what to believe for themselves. On the 'religious flaming' point, I've never been able to fully understand this. People often claim it, yet not one foul word has been thrown around here and people have only thus far talked about evolution being a fact/theory. This seems to be exactly the kind of victim mentality seen in another topic - I question something about a posters view of why he believes in god and I'm instantly accused of trying to convert people to atheism.

I'm fine with athiests having debates about religion with theists, providing they both want to debate it. There are several athiests I know, such as my brother, who constantly listen to podcasts on philosophy and bashing religion, and he constantly debates with me and my mother about our beliefs, fair enough, but he continues debating even after the point where we tell him to bugger off because he's annoying us (He's 17). I think the reason the debates don't go anywhere is that we're both too stubborn with our views. But oh well, I'm fine with athiesm as a whole, just certain athiests really grind my gears. Oh I agree fully, people who just pick out fights (on both sides of the fence) are rather annoying. However obviously if you're posting in a thread which is bound to have debates that is pretty much opening yourself up to question, if you kind of get what I'm saying. Agreed. In this kind of form of communication there's bound to be debate and challenge because people will want to and that's more or less what you'd expect. But if anyone honestly dosen't wan't to debate, you don't have to. Just ignore it or say you don't want to and I doubt anyone will labor the point. @ Hiimben, posting on a forum is one thing but constantly verbally hounding people you have to see everyday is another. I sympathise with your situation regarding your uncompassionate brother.

Atheists don't 'believe' which kind of makes that impossible. Either way you can believe whatever you like. I don't care in the slightest and in fact I love the idea of seperation of church and state. That we can believe whatever we like is an indicator of a healthy democracy to me. I have the right to question what I like, as do you, and if someone interprets that as me trying to 'convert' them or change (or even attack) their views then I can only say they mustn't be too strong in their faith. Besides that I doubt atheists actually try to 'convert' people. You never see anyone prosthelytizing atheism on the streets or at overseas countries, only people of faith. The simple reason for that is likely that atheism is the absence of something, not an actual position or 'religion' to be sold to people. The idea that people (not directing this at you, Nitramosma, this is more of a general comment) will get offended to the point of saying you're attacking their views when questioning them and putting forward challenges to those views is just rediculous to me and I could only put it down to being born out of insecurity.

1. Anti-lies, not a false statement, etc 2. God and Buddha 3. God - No evidence for or against him, so why not give him a shot? Maybe he's real, maybe he's not. But we'll never know. Buddha - Buddhism is just the religion that speaks to me. There's something about it that just seems right in my mind. 4. What? Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, The Great Juju up the mountain, Quetzalcoatl - no evidence for or against them, so why not give them a shot? The answer to this is simple. It's because they are not the cultural norm in Western nations. If they were, you'd have the same sentiment towards them and I don't think something is worthy of belief or more likely true just because of a cultural preferance.

When I was a kid and found out why people murder, loot, rape, let children starve to death and violate each other in masses was the day I realized I had been brought up in a fairytale world. Humans are just like any other animals, they'll do anything for resources (such as money, oil, gold, diamonds, mines, political power) What still astonishes me is that people make the assumption "I'm having a good life, therefore God must have blessed me". And they keep praying for divine help in trivial matters, not to insult her, but my grandmother would ask for 'God's help' in deciding what gifts to give as a present? -.- If there is an infinitely wise God, he'd probably first find a way to feed the 30,000 children who die every day (including today) of HUNGER and thirst. Yes, while western pigs (such as myself, I wont be embarrassed to admit) have more to eat than is necessary, some kids age 5 with no parents can't find a grain of rice for nutrition. But yeah, whatever positive things are happening in your life, "God" must've caused it. He probably also cares more about you winning the lottery and spending it on cars and booze, than helping people who really need aid. :lol: You're free to believe whatever you want though... Remember there are thousands of religions, people generally need something comforting or reassuring. Anyone ever seen that show 'Deadliest Catch'? I was dumbfounded when the dude thanked god for helping him fish crab... as if that's what god goes around doing all day. I don't mean just a 'thanks', I mean the actual attitude that calls on this infinite, all powerful, all wise, all knowing being to help you physically fish crab. Each to his own I suppose. :?

Good question. I actually did a history paper on whether or not the mass bombing raids by the RAF on Germany could be justifiable. Franky, no, not if the targets were non-military and not if the war was coming to an end (as it was when we started fire-bombing places like Dresden). The bombing is too indiscriminate. Complain to the thousands who died during the Blitz. The Germans pretty much just lobbed railroad rounds and rockets across the bay with no real targets. Plus, carpet bombing was the norm for the time. Precision bombing was not accurate enough or able to be applied to large targets at the time. Even the venerable Norton bombsight was only accurate to a few hundred yards. And about the Japanese bombings: 82% of the blast to Hiroshima and 93% of the Nagasaki blast hit military targets only. In both cities, the damage accounted for less than a quarter of the entire city. We did not flatten the entire civilian population. In addition, the long-term effects of radiation were not studied enough. You could also say the same for the Japanese policy of putting dense civilian populations next to military targets. Interesting stuff. It suddenly makes the bombings a little less 'child of satan' and a little more justified. Do you by any chance know of any accurate general shistory sites where you can look this kind of stuff up?

I'm pretty sure the Buddha was a real man. His name was Siddhartha Guatama. Kind of like Jesus. He was a real man, it's just the whole divine aspect you have to take on faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Definately something simple and in a nice scenic spot somewhere.

http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php :wink: Edit: by the way, how ironic is that last t-shirt now given recent news? Haha:

I don't want anything but the opportunity to park my behind on the couch for 5 days starting boxing day for the cricket. :D I'll probably buy myself some guitar strings and a CD or something. Get in the festive spirit.

I'm easy to please. I found a little town called Kingscliff in NSW, Australia really laid back, easy going and being on the beach is always a plus. For the Aussies who need a reference, it's just over the border (enemy territory) from the Gold Coast.

Must be a Labour supporter. Probably in a Bondi electorate... (I'd hope so) :lol:

1. Is this a trick question? Frankly in the simplist form I would describe truth as the absense of lies in a given moment. 2. I am a Catholic, I believe in God. 3. I was raised to believe in His presence. Reflecting back to question 1, (1) I believe that God is the truth since I have yet to find any lies about his presence. We know for a fact that Jesus, one of the three parts of God (God the Son) was alive because of writings from ancient roman disbelievers, like a man I believe was named Pliny the younger. He asked the roman emperor, Trajan, how to deal with Christians and Jesus. 4. Another trick question? I would say God is truth, thus truth is the absence of lies, and so God is the absence of lies. The bible isn't a lie, no matter what others say. He is the "Good shepherd" and he loves you even if you don't love him back, and hes ready to forgive you if you turn away from him. (2) I don't listen to what the Atheists say about him. They think they know all about him by reading the Bible and disproving christian beliefs by it, but they still can't understand the Bible is not a text book for history or a "Christian for dummies" kind of manual. It is for issues of faith only and to show God's love for us. Thus, I can't see what atheists have that could possibly say "the bible is wrong" since of course they have nothing to compare it to. Again, reflecting on question 1, God is the absense of lies. Many will claim he is the very definition of lies because of the Bible, and hate christians because of it. As said in the Gospel of Luke "you will be hated by all because of my name". (1) Of course there's no lies about him, he's god. You should dwell on this more. What do people do when trying to make up a grand concept? They make it irrefutable, shiny, sacred, pious, all powerful, all knowing, all wise and everywhere and the epitome of truth. There are no lies when it comes to such a concept, according to how it's defined. (2) Maybe the atheists that do this do it to combat those who see the bible as a literal text book full of nothing but fact. The ideas of gods love and your faith that you get from the bible wouldn't likely be an atheists gripe with it, although many of them, like me, dislike the concept of faith being anything virtuous.

I think he's pointing fingers and strong atheism dude, not weak atheism or agnosticism :-s . I know. I think they should be able to have their views without being called ultimately arrogant.

Why do you feel people who say there is no superior being are arrogant?

Lol, I think I might join that sentiment. Labor are going to win. Anyone can tell that by now.

So, how'd you guys vote/how are you gonna vote? I went for the coalition. :XD: I don't see any particular problems, I've got no particular worries about workchoices and the economy and employment have been going along nicely (which both inevitably waterfall down into everything else indirectly or otherwise) so I decided against change.