Blyaunte

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational. The atheist-theist discussion isn't only about evolution. It basicly is only about God, when evolution is used by atheists to prove themselves correct, and theists just say that's not true. It's essentially nothing more than a pissing match, with the stakes being who can say "I told you so." Both sides of the argument (read: intelligent sides of the argument, not the less educated bigots...on both sides) have enough common ground where unless you specifically bring up the origins of man there is little to no disagreement. Um -- how many atheists have you actually met? :unsure:

So -- if a Church denied, say, an inter-racial couple the rite of marriage, you'd be okay with letting them be *that* discriminatory too?

I intend to post this to the RSOF later today. Your input would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks.

We get it. At the same time, I think that atheism seems silly to me, not being held to a higher power being judgement in the afterlife, but I get heavily criticized whenever I bring up that point. Frankly, I've never really understood why anyone would want to believe that some imaginary creature wants to party with their ghost, but hey, if it helps you sleep better at night, then so be it.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead." Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper." Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting." John: "Of course, Hank dictated it." Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?" Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people." Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the snot out of people just because they're different?" Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right." Me: "How do you figure that?" Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!" Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up." John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too." Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong." John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure." Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..." Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese." Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese." John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!" Me: "We do?" Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so." Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'" John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking." Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?" Mary: She blushes. John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong." Me: "What if I don't have a bun?" John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong." Me: "No relish? No Mustard?" Mary: She looks positively stricken. John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!" Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?" Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la." John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..." Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." Mary: She faints. John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's butt for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off. I find that entire dialogue rather offensive. No, we do not 'Kiss His butt' nor do we have contradictory Commandments. Nor is it written anywhere in religious scripture that God deems that you must kill other people unlike you; not even the Qu'ran dictates that. I shall not sink to your level and insult you, but I find it hard when this is such a blatant and obvious assault on us 'religious types'. Any good Christian knows that laughing at atheists or 'non-believers' for their choices is NOT Christian. Humans are just as likely to succumb to sin and immorality as ever. We're not God. This, however, makes all religious people seem like arrogant, crumby bastards. I've never heard worse ignorant crap, not even listening to Rush Limbaugh. Not even reading Mein Kaumpf. Bite thin tongue, hypocrite. 'Live and let live' has always been the motto of most the atheists I've ever met, and then they turn around and attack us and insist that we're being bigots because of Who we believe in, then they come up with gross mis-analogies that don't fit at all. Well, I'm getting sick of it. Wow -- SOMEONE needs to unhook from the Matrix already ... : Ya know, the point behind the "Kissing Hank's [wagon]" commentary, is to demonstrate just how silly religion appears to the non-religious. If it offends you, perhaps you should cut off thy nose, despite your face? :^o

You've missed the point: Funny -- but when it's YOUR body being called to task, you've got a much different opinion as to responsibility. :shame:

Actually -- it's currently against the "The Defense of Marriage Act" -- however it is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the USA. DOMA is on Obama's repeal listing, and I would imagine it won't survive his first term. As far as religion providing the "concept" of marriage goes -- you are plainly mistaken. Originally, marriage was little more than a business arrangement between families. Religion was brought into it much later ... OH boy. How is this a against the act? Ohio doesn't infact recognize any relationships b/w persons of the same sex as a marriage. Hmm, interesting or what? You're missing the point. Sure, gay marriage is "disavowed" but it's not like the American government is making homosexual unions "illegal" by rounding up gay couples and putting them into concentration camps. It's not even a misdemeanor. DOMA is a ridiculous and superfluous Act -- nothing more. BTW -- did you know that inter-racial marriages were once banned, by laws similar to DOMA, as set out by the U.S. government. At one time, depending on the colour of your skin, you could likewise be denied living accommodation in certain areas of the U.S. Even if you had the money, you weren't allowed to live in certain neighbourhoods -- nor could you marry someone who's skin colour was different than yours. Ridiculous stuff, isn't it? Tell me, should your government be allowed to tell you where you can live and work? Should it have the power to decide who you should and should not marry? Would you really want to live in a country that has a government that would deny you these rights?

Quite right -- women were considered second class beings in those days -- third class if you include donkeys ... :rolleyes: Actually Israeli culture held women in higher standards than most think. Lineage, for example, has always been traced through the mother not the father. >< We are getting off topic. So please no more dissing my religion. :evil: My apologies -- I have great respect for Judaism ...

Actually -- it's currently against the "The Defense of Marriage Act" -- however it is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the USA. DOMA is on Obama's repeal listing, and I would imagine it won't survive his first term. As far as religion providing the "concept" of marriage goes -- you are plainly mistaken. Originally, marriage was little more than a business arrangement between families. Religion was brought into it much later ...

But, you like to watch two women do it, right? -.- Um, no. Stop putting words in my mouth. Why don't you actually read my posts instead of making [developmentally delayed] assumptions? Right -- that's what you're saying now ... :lol: Did you know that, while Leviticus made commentary about man-on-man action being an "abomination", he didn't actually say anything bad about girl-on-girl? A coincidence? I wonder ... You do realize I support gay marriage, right? Read some of my posts, like I said. Yeah, I know -- I just like giving you the gears because it's fun and I am bored ... ;) Quite right -- women were considered second class beings in those days -- third class if you include donkeys ... :rolleyes:

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, right? Yes, but quite frankly, that's stupid! It's like saying that all you have to do is write a book that names you as God and then suddenly you are God! while it may not mean you really are, if that's what you want to believe, then go for it. [bleep] that, I'm becoming an atheist now. I am reminded, somehow, of this: Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead." Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper." Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting." John: "Of course, Hank dictated it." Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?" Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people." Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the snot out of people just because they're different?" Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right." Me: "How do you figure that?" Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!" Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up." John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too." Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong." John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure." Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..." Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese." Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese." John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!" Me: "We do?" Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so." Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'" John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking." Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?" Mary: She blushes. John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong." Me: "What if I don't have a bun?" John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong." Me: "No relish? No Mustard?" Mary: She looks positively stricken. John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!" Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?" Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la." John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..." Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." Mary: She faints. John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's butt for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

But, you like to watch two women do it, right? -.- Um, no. Stop putting words in my mouth. Why don't you actually read my posts instead of making [developmentally delayed] assumptions? Right -- that's what you're saying now ... :lol: Did you know that, while Leviticus made commentary about man-on-man action being an "abomination", he didn't actually say anything bad about girl-on-girl? A coincidence? I wonder ...

Actually, no. It's neither a "religious [nor] governmental issue". The fact is that there really is no "religious" impediment to gay marriage, nor can gays be denied the right to "marriage" by any government with operates under any form of constitutional law based upon human rights.

.. god is not dead, he's resting -- you know, pining for the fjords ... :lol:

But, you like to watch two women do it, right? -.- There is no right or wrong about homosexuality. It's been a part of the human condition since the dawn of man -- and it's even reveled about in movies like "Top Gun". The point is that it is here and it's not going away -- deal with it. What is more, you're going to have to deal with the other "side-effects" of it: gay marriage and gay rights. It is not wrong for life-long partners to want to be able to pass down the benefits enjoyed by "regulation" married couples in the same manner. Likewise, it is not wrong for gays to want the rights which are granted to everyone else either.

Tell me is it right for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to FORCE an individual to use his or her body to preserve the life of someone who is already born? For example, lets say, Oprah Winfrey needed your liver could the government just take yours without your permission? Why not simply define "everything containing human DNA" as a person, and thereafter require all citizens to make their bodies and bodily parts readily available to all others, including those already out of the womb, who might need them in order to go on living? Why restrict the "right to life" to the unborn? Once you accept that notion, based on some "inherent right to life", that a woman can be compelled to allow her body to be used for the benefit of a fetus, why not demand the same benefit for those already born? How about requiring every able-bodied citizen make his body accessible to any patient who might need it in order to survive? Would you agree to this kind of law? What part of your own body are you willing to offer to someone who may require it to ensure their continued existence? Or do you think only female bodies should be available for use as life support?

Not that I am disagreeing with anyone or anything, BUT you do realize that, unlike in WoW or other MORPGs, youre not limited to only using mage as a combat skill and, as such, there really is no reason for Jagex to actually upgrade or otherwise overhaul the magic skill, right? Not that it doesnt need an overhaul hell, what it needs is a whole new kick-butt branch of magics that can tear a strip of everyone. DARK magic, perhaps or something of that ilk. Then again, I NEVER ever seem to get the BIG hits or anything like that anyways, regardless of my intended target, or chosen method of attack but I simply put that all down to the fact that "I AM RIGGED". Perhaps thats the source of your problem maybe youre just RIGGED too? :P

Inasmuch as my "drops" and anything else reliant upon "luck" is notoriously awful, I have relied entirely on skill to make my money ... -.-

I will check these out guys -- thanks!

I just picked up a "new to me" laptop -- it's a 2.0 Ghz Celeron (hey, it was free!) -- and for some odd reason, it won't run the Java for Ruescape on either I.E. or Firefox 2.0. I can install Java just fine, it seems ... I can get to Runescape, but after I select worlds, it either tries to re-install Java, or tells me I need to install Java, before it will work. I've tried a variety of settings in the detail section, includng all the signed and unsigned Java selections. I have tried uninstalling Java, and letting the browser do it. I've fiddled with a variety of "security settings" in I.E. to try to get the darn thing to work. I'm stumped campers -- any ideas?

Zamorak? :lol:

I'm 42 and my girlfriend, who also plays, is 31. Between us, we've got three children who also play RS. My two kids are only with us a couple of days each week, and we use Runescape as a means of getting together and spending time with each other on those days we are apart. To be frank, it really helps, some days ...

Personally, I don't know which side of this argument I am on. I'm not sure if I don't care, or I don't care ...

I remember when the original "Pong" came out. Good GAWD, I am OLD ...

Well -- I'm 42, I've been playing since last August. I've got three kids and all of them play. That said, you can add me -- I am always looking for other "grown-ups" to play with.