Satenza

That's completely false, actually. Maybe not the miracles and such in the Bible, but at least all of the people were real people. Red - Implys he Bible and Qu'ran have more proof. Blue - Implys the reason for the previous statement is that the Bible and Qu'ran have more proof because of historical accuracy. The only thing historical records offer as far as proof towards the Bible is greater possibility it may be true. Proof however is never something that can stem from these historical records of Jesus.

:lol: Greatest motto ever.

That doesn't really matter, Hohto said that scientology was just as proven as the Bible and the Qu'ran. Their duty is to show Gods existance, since God can't be proven they all have as much proof as each other. Historical accuracy doesn't prove the Bible or make it more proven than scientology as both have zero proof of being true to begin with. Does the historical account of Jesus prove the Bible? The answer is no. Just like the fact the earth is used in scientology when talking about the volcano atom explosions doesn't prove that to any degree either.

It does, you idiot. Therefore, everything else you say is wrong and has no meaning. Quit posting. If you wish to defy all other Christians and show me some proof the Bible is true that does not require faith then shoot me a PM with it. Otherwise it's just as proven as scientology. It's an oxymoron to state that the Bible has proof behind it and yet still accept that faith is needed to beleive in it. You are infact the incredibly rude person here. Did you learn nothing from your "Why does everyone hate arguments" thread?

Then why throw money away on anything we don't need to survive?

Then don't say that this is completley false in the sense that it doesn't have much proof behind it. It is as well "proven" as the Bible or Qur'an because anything metaphyscial that either of them state isn't proven to any degree. The people and the events do not prove the Bible, as it's all about God, and it's aim is to prove Gods existance. Do those events and people prove the Bible to any sort of degree? I don't care whether you have a differing beleif to me, thats not what this is about in the slightest. It's about you saying that the Bible has more proof than Scientology. If by rude you mean drawing true parallels from Scientology to Christianity then by all means I am rude. Thats not the way I roll.

That doesn't make it any less of a cult that scientology though does it? The same argument can be applied to scientology. The spaceman came to earth, earth is proven to have existed so it has some factual bases? The answer is no, both require illogical faith, both capitalise money wise from their followers (Christianity more), both indoctrinate people. The only real difference is Christianity is accepted in society and Scientology is not.

Nothing can be proven religion wise about Christianity. Places mentioned make nothing credible. Christianity requires illogical faith, Scientology requires illogical faith. There the same thing, the details just differ. Really when we take a look at the Christianity aswell, we can clearly see that it's much more richer than Scientology will ever be, so which is more of a fraud?

Poles Apart - Pink Floyd

http://xenutv.com/ is a man interviewing a number of scientologists who assualt and attempt to riducule him. I have to agree with Hoto though, if your a religious person i don't really think you are in any position to judge these people.

Im a dancing machine, feel the music. Feel it.

Who wouldn't be inspired by just looking at Ingrid Bergman to make such a beautiful film? :) However i do prefer Paisa to any other of Rossellini works.

Unfortunatley Mr. Marx isn't the smartest philosopher around. :P I agree with him there though.

You can't help without war, people who live in oppressive regimes in countries like these only suffer worse from economic sanctions that the UN could apply. The only way is to remove these threats to innocent civilians by force. It's one of those extreme cases, but it would be pretty irrelevant in the long run because of capitalist societys's political attitude towards different economical systems. Places like this would not be helped by a capitalist economical regime enstated on them, communism would be a hell of a lot better on smaller scales.

A person, and i guess my Ipod? :)

Goodbye Blue Sky - Pink Floyd Into Shine On You Crazy Diamond (parts 1-7) - Pink Floyd

WE (as in america) WILL NOT SEND MORE OF OUR BOYS TO DIE!!! we went to Iraq, everybody siad "yay! we took out a dictator!" nobody opposed us going in. now everybody says "well, i didnt like this from the start, we should just give up." that is in one country. Why would we send OUR young men and women over-seas AGAIN, just so the same thing will happen. im sick of everyone hating my fine country. yes there is suffering, yes it is horrendous, yes, something needs to be done, so how about the UK or germany or france(wait, no, not france, they would wimp out) and let THEM stage a invasion. we might show and help out and then leave them to stay and get blown up by car bombs by themselves. why cant anyone see that America is not going to get itself into another conflict with no garuntee of success when the only thing that will happen is the rest of the world will whine and complain about how we do it? As I said; As a humanitarian I am arguing from a humanitarian point of view. If i was not, then as i already said America should return to a laissez faire policy.

The only coutries that could ever help enough are all massivley capitilist at heart, which is why they are the only ones that could ever help because caplitalism is money. Communist countries at the moment don't have the abilities to help out. They have their own problems because of their economic structure being on such a large scale.

So why should we help if nothing dramatic will ever change? Wouldn't that just be a waste of taxpayers money and manpower which could be used for something more worthwhile? Nothing will ever dramatically change because America is so damn scared of anything challenging capitalism. Thats why. I didn't ask why nothing would change, I asked why we should bother helping if it's not worthwhile. It would only be dramatically worthwhile if your country changed it's absolute capitalist stances in favor of humanitarian ones. Sometimes i think Marx would have done himself a huge favor had he not played the scare-tactic card in his work, by saying Communism definatley will come about as a synthesis to capitalism. Drop Marx's paradoxical statements and America may be more accepting that the only way to change these situations is by using another form of economical ideology on a smaller level. Otherwise I agree there is no point helping.

So why should we help if nothing dramatic will ever change? Wouldn't that just be a waste of taxpayers money and manpower which could be used for something more worthwhile? Nothing will ever dramatically change because America is so damn scared of anything challenging capitalism. Thats why.

We'd be inclined to help if a few other [powerful] countries just got their act together and got off their [wagon]s every once in a while, instead of just sitting in their cozy little countries doing nothing. As said, we're not the world police. Don't insult us one day, then expect us to do all the dirty work the next. America as a country should for the time being return to a laissez faire type policy on all events excluding climate change. However as a humanitarian, they need to help. I don't buy this "Everyone else should help first" argument. The real reason why no help is really being given (ie Military interferance) is because this region in Africa is deemed as a doomed area. The only way to prevent all the terrible things happening is to spend billions of dollars. Then what? Africans saturate the market with their skills and soon the world's proletariat becomes worthless and unemployment continues to be high. The only system economically that i could see working is a form of communism, as it's better than what they have now. America will never support communism, and so if left to America nothing will ever dramatically change in the region.

No it's not, it is 18. I'm also 17 no one really cares all that much as to underage drinking when your only a couple months away from 18. Although last night i was challenged to stay dry all night to see if it was fun. Watching drunk friends staggering around the place isn't fun :P

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=601519

Damn right it is.

"He who only knows his side of the argument knows little of that" - The main reason stupid people stoop to name calling. Then comes god given opinions, the poster beleiving they are superior ect Some people like to defy logic, when their illogical opinions are shown and contradictions arise they like to shift the blame onto the person showing them how contradictory their opinions are, then they say you twist their words, thats the only place where intelligent debate leads to argument. I don't know why people mistake debate for argument, argument contains stupid name calling whereas debate contains discussion about peoples opinions not themselves. But usually that misconception of people thinking you are attacking them by attacking their opinions is the same as attacking them personally results in name calling.