Satenza

I can not find the difference between the purpose of your life and the purpose of the atheists life. Who determines your purpose? You, and you have chosen that God. It all leads back to your own independant decision, no matter what the conclusion is.

Because God is a source of absolute truth and meaning. Nothing in your atheistic viewpoint can give an absolute purpose to things. Its irrelevant as to whether meaning is absolute or truthful, it seems absurd for an atheist to say that seperate meanings to life can at the same time be bound together and be valid for all. Infact it sounds absurd for anyone to say that. Which leaves us with whether something externally places a meaning to our life which is possible, or whether we place meaning on our own lives. Either way we both discover that meaning internally. You discovered your faith internally, and therefore your meaning to life. Just as I may discover my meaning to life internally. Whether we like it or not that meaning does exist individuallly to ourselves. You may have faith that your meaning to life applies to everyone, however you are in the same sense doing what you said was absurd. Taking something individual and applying it to the universal. Edit: Can that guy who bolds all the damn time stop, its annoying. I think you just lost if you argue like a sophist.

That does not answer the question of whether you find the technical aspect of music more or less meaningful than your interpretation of it, but i just wanted to point out that I think, at least, there is a distinct engagement between emotion, individuality and meaning. Which seems to be absracted from universality No, you do not have to ammend your first comment. I am not Locke :P

Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P . I was basically going to mirror what you say here. I personally see more meaning in the universally known than the individually believed. Difference of opinion. Let me use an example, I understand you have a love of music correct? Now what has more meaning to you, the cords and the technical aspect of music that anyone can appreciate, or your individual interpretation of music, the lyrics and the way it affects you? I see value in the technical aspects of music, but I see no real meaningful engagement I can have with it. On the other hand my interpretation of music can move me and it affects me, it is more meaningful to me.

Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. I think you are misenterpreting what i mean, if a person came to me and said they had an inner conviction that God existed and were completley taken by it then it still would be meaningless to me. However that conviction means more to him then anything that he could have articulated to me, and therefore the universal. His inner conviction for himself trancends any generality, whether it in itself is right or wrong. The universal is not engaging though in this aspect. Take ethics for example. The purpose of ethics is the individual, to provide a sense of universiality to the rights and wrongs of life. Yet in doing so it entangles everyone into one thing, theres no engagement i can have with it. It looses all sense of uniqueness.

In the final paragraph I was arguing against your belief that we can not prove God in a meaningful way. There are, in my opinion, two problems with your analysis; the first is simply that we have agreed that God can not be proven by any rational and therefore universal means. This leads onto the assumption I am going to make about what you meant by meaningful. I assume you mean that an inability to prove God in a meaningful way is due to the fact we can not prove God in universal way, and it is very much an internal and subjective belief. I take from this that you are placing more meaning in what is universal than what is individual. That was simply by problem, because I would think that meaning links back to emotion, and an ability to move individuals. The universal is empty and uninspiring and in that sense an individual expression, for me at least, would seem to hold more meaning than something that is universal. By saying that we can not prove God in a meaningful way is wrong, because for a person who truly believes in God they have proven their belief individually for themselves in the most meaningful way possible. The fact that they can not articulate that belief, and can not rely on generality to express it only shows how individual and meaningful that is. On a universal level it may be meaningless, but the universal seems to be meaningless anyway, even more so in this instance since we have agreed that we can not rationally point out an existence or belief in God.

Nah, the best one from Futurama is "I'll always remember you Phillip J. Fry... MEMORY DELETED".

Are L&B the ones with the sliiiiide packet?

This is why a belief in God is internal and inexpressible, if you are looking for a way to logically describe a personÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s faith or them to tell you why they think their belief is true in this sense, then you will misunderstand this concept. You may regard something which does not reflect the logical world as a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åcop outÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

yeah.. :-s A federal government would mean there would be a balance of power between Washington and the other states. Thats why in the constitution, states have more power over what decisions are made then they do in reality, because the scales are tipped to a centralized power in Washington.

But religion is not synonymous with something which can explain the thrownness of life. It is simply accepting that reason meets its limits in the unknown which leads to a sort of existentialist view of life. Religion does not fail when it opresses people or brutalizes them into killing others, individuals fail when they adopt such stances. Just as science does not fail when an individual uses it to opress and brutalize others.

Reason fails in ultimatley telling us why we have been brought or thrown into existence. Whatever can explain the most important question to us must firstly be higher because its answer is more valuable. It must transcend both reason and logic because it must surpass the limitations that face them.

Does that not show the limitation that reason meets in itself. Therefore would it be fair for me to suggest there is something higher that trancends both reason and logic. I think when observing reason from a rational standpoint you can only observe its explicit flaws.

Seems like you're making quite an assumption there.

They gave them the platform so they could no longer play the victim, it was never about trying to elevate any extreme right wing parties. It was giving them a voice so their voice could be shown to be what it was, not a victim but a bully. In the case of the BNP leader, that is.

Some powers are taken away and dealt with in Washington for pragmatic reasons. I am for a devoultion of power and decentralisation, but in the constitution some things are no longer representative of the modern world. There is no real statewide economy anymore, the idea that a state would regulate it by itself is not operable. Its not unconstitutional, its sensible.

Wow, that's it. You've cracked it. Man, why didn't anyone think of this sooner? I tell you what Joe, perhaps you're the God we've all been looking for. Im down on my knees already.

Right but justice is a universal law that must be applicable to everyone. Basing your sense of justice on particulars rather than on the universal is naive and depending on the person, is dangerous. The "instant something bad happened" shows the flaw in your thinking, how rational does it seem to base a universal law on the thoughts of someone acting or thinking completely irrationally?

The BNP are not a serious party, they have a few council members, no members of parliament. Their political influence is worthless. The press just likes to show how stupid their policies are, which they are correct in doing so. Vote Conservative. And no I would not give up my vote for an Ipod. I may give it up for one election for a yearÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s tuition. I do not see why everyone is saying votes are worthless; here in the UK some constituencies depend on twenty or thirty votes sometimes. Like where I live itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s always a two horse race between the conservatives and the liberal democrats, and in some places a vote can make a big difference, maybe not on the overall party that is elected but definitely a difference in your local area. In America thereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s always some vote on every damn civil servant position anyway, probably the reason why you have a low turnout.

It is not just for people who have made a postive difference to the world. Stalin also won it twice, Nixon and Kissinger, George Bush ect. The winner is someone/something who "for better or for worse, has done the most to influence the events of the year."

I voted Putin so he does not poison my tea.

Greenwhich in NYC is where Bob Dylan among other great musicians have their roots. The culture club of the 60's!

Organising the slave auction last year, participating in the drop party and being a member of the TET was fun. Post-refresh-post debates were fun. Where did they go!?

There has been bitter tention towards the US from the Iraqi people anyway.

Congress could theoretically cut the spending on the war and try and hoist troops out of it that way, but then it would just be blamed for soliders dying due to funds being cut.