Satenza

Yes there will be harm, because if any other religion is right then you are screwed. Just like they're screwed if you are right.

-.- God doesn't send people to Hell, they send themselves. You go to Heaven or Hell based on your Actions, in my religion anyway, and yes I am a Christian. God loves you but if your not willing to love him back, or you turn your back on Him doesn't look to good does it? Sorry, that does't make sense. Firstly we all feel compassion for others, if your child turned his back on you and you had the chance to save him from an eternity of being proded with hot pokers then would you? Now times that compassion by infinity (as God is infinitley compassionate) and your conclusion doesn't make sense. Either the definition of God is wrong, or you are wrong. Either way your religions wrong on that point. How does that not make sense? Yes God loves all us, no matter what, but you choose to love him and obey him or not. God doesn't hate homosexuals, its just frowned upon. And what you said about God is infinitely compassionate is right in one way, but like I said, you choose where you will go if it be to Hell or not, its all by your actions, again God does loves us, but you have to love him and obey his rules. Because infinite love would mean God would save us no matter what we did wrong. He is all powerful, so he can save us from hell even if we don't believe in him. He is choosing not too, therefore choosing to send people to hell. It's just like if your son chose to commit suicide one day, if you had the power to stop him you would because we are compassionate beings. Therefore his infinite compassion would surley stop us from going to hell, no matter what. And i don't agree with this choice matter either. To beleive in a specific God (AKA the Christian God) it requires you to have an illogical belief. It makes a lot more sense to not beleive something illogical right? So if there was trueley a choice God would not have become the paradox he now is. It would only be fair if there was a fair choice. Basically Gods saying "Yeah, to believe in me you are required to throw empiricism and logic away, and if you don't believe in me you will burn in hell". Hardly a fair choice since those who appriciate logic and empiricism (the tool God apparently gave us to seek truth) are already screwed.

-.- God doesn't send people to Hell, they send themselves. You go to Heaven or Hell based on your Actions, in my religion anyway, and yes I am a Christian. God loves you but if your not willing to love him back, or you turn your back on Him doesn't look to good does it? Sorry, that does't make sense. Firstly we all feel compassion for others, if your child turned his back on you and you had the chance to save him from an eternity of being proded with hot pokers then would you? Now times that compassion by infinity (as God is infinitley compassionate) and your conclusion doesn't make sense. Either the definition of God is wrong, or you are wrong. Either way your religions wrong on that point.

I know you say he loves everyone, but doesn't sending people who go against his word to a fiery eternity in hell equal to hate?

I saw it as well, although that Keith guy wasn't the greatest theologian or debater, or credible atheist to stand up against them it was still interesting to watch the arguments they had. It would have been better if it was someone like Dawkins who went there though, the debates would have been a lot better.

Sorry, i wasn't asking the question of "Who censors" but challenging dutch's principle of censorship to retain freedom of speech on the justification of offence. The banning of Mein Kampf is tricky, because in a way it does incite harm to others.

Since when is offence justification for censorship? Practicalty everyone's lifestyle or opinions offend someone.

But isn't banning Nazism the top of the slippery slope to censorship of all opinions contrary to the popular majority opinion? I don't support Nazism in any form, but banning it assumes infalibility on the government behalf. All opinions are allowed to be held, whats wrong and illegal is when you act on opinions like these or incite harm to another human. As long as the person holding the opinion does neither then there is no justification to ban that. Whether it be racist, sexist, supporting nazism, facism or whatever. The poem can be applied in the way that first they came for the Nazi's then they came for the communists, then they came for the liberals. When does it stop?

ITS A SQUARE PEICE OF SPONGE WEARING TROUSERS WITH A PURPLE BLOB FOR A FRIEND LALALALALALOLOLOOL

Opening credits: Peace Frog - The Doors Waking up: Dignity - Bob Dylan Average day: Sultans Of Swing - Dire Straits First date: Brown Sugar - The Rolling Stones Falling in love: Long Hot Summer Night - Hendrix Love scene: The Great Gig In The Sky - Pink Floyd Fight scene: 100 Miles And Running - N.W.A Breaking up: Wasted Time - Eagles Getting back together: Speak To Me/Breathe - Pink Floyd Secret love: Poles Apart - Pink Floyd Life's okay: Keep Rockin' In The Free World - Neil Young Mental breakdown: Time - Pink Floyd Driving: Crosstown Traffic - Jimi Hendrix Learning a lesson: Positivley 4th Street - Bob Dylan Deep thought: The End - The Doors Flashback: End Of The Line - The Travelling Wilburys Partying: Break On Through - The Doors Happy dance: Waterfall - The Stones Roses Regreting: Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd Long night alone: Wild World - Cat Stevens Death scene: The Seeker - The Who Closing credits: Run Like Hell - Pink Floyd That was fun :D

All questions in history must be answered with "I agree/disagree to an extent..." :P

You talk crazy rebby, we all know carlin brings down whatever above average IQ we would have achieved.

You are insane though :lol:

Thats sexual fustration apparently :P I cant say i have any, when i was younger i had pretty weird routines and compulsions but not anymore.

I was wondering where the hell you went.

Coming Back To Life - Pink Floyd

There are "hoods" in Canada?

No, they wern't pedophiles.

Democracy was created in Iceland some time in the 1400's. Greece popularized democracy. I mean who would follow from the example of Iceland rather than Greece home to some of the greatest political philosophers to have existed. To clarify on the history of democracy... The ancient Greeks invented it. It wasn't a great democracy. It was mainly a bunch of rich citizens that were men voting. No one else. Then the Persian Wars came, and Pericles started the Golden Age of Athens. He then modified democracy and made it better...He gave metics and slaves a few more rights. (I think) Then later on, during the early ancient Roman times, the Romans found out about democracy. The Patricians (Or was it the Plebians?) were the only ones that voted, but later on, a Constitution was made. This was the first Republic, now the government system of the USA. Obviously, the ancient governments are nothing like modern governments, but the basic concept is the same. And I didn't mention anything about the Spartan "democracy" as Zonorhc's last posts have made me a little confused. I have no idea where you heard anything about Iceland, by the way. Iceland was one of the first countrys to take on democracy in a truer form at around 900AD. Athenian democracy was more of a narrow democratic state despite it taking on a few changes over time. Even if Greece did lose the persian wars, it wasn't carried on. It was the legend of democracy that inspired the rest of the world, it was a very good experiment of direct democracy. Maybe we should return to a direct democracy rather than the representative dictatorship we currently have.

Read

Democracy was created in Iceland some time in the 1400's. Greece popularized democracy. I mean who would follow from the example of Iceland rather than Greece home to some of the greatest political philosophers to have existed.

This elitist attitude is annoying.

You pointed out no flaws or the apparent contradictions in the argument. All you did was say it was up to Tallest to make a topic about your problem and called it a Guilani for him suggesting that. Then at the same time complaining about spam, by spamming. If anyone's contradicting themselves it is you. Just because you can't see the flaws I've pointed out doesn't mean they're not there. Last time I checked, people on this board don't need your almighty approval before they post something, so stop acting on every damn thread like they do. You have not pointed out any flaws. I have nothing against this thread, it's you who seems to want the need of almighty approval before anyone posting a thread here.

You can still argue China is the most powerful country in the world on an economic level. At the exploitation of it's citizens. If China is such a intelligent country then it would never be in the state it is in now. China isn't being exploited soley because of slacking industirialization, it's only ever been prolonged by Mao and his successors. It's citizens had the chance to stand up to the regime after Mao's death, and they failed to do so instead believeing lies about Mao's innocence for the cultural revolution which affected every chinese person and resulted in seventy million deaths. They have had many chances to end their own exploitation, revolutions have happened at a lot lesser death tolls. The only thing intelligent about China as a country at the moment is it's population size and all the ways in which it can be exploitated. Im not talking about the past, im talking about now. In a argument against "Thats why Chinese people are so smart".

That's why Chinese people are smart. :wink: No racism, even though it's true most of the time Since when is China so smart, have so seen the state of China? Anyway, it's more a mechanical device than a computer very good nevertheless. since the past 6000 or so years? Have you seen the state of China?