blazer

Heh, obviously you don't really know much about the Bible or Christianity. If you're gonna fight Christians, it'd be wise to know a little about what they believe. It's not like there's been a period of time without God. God has always been around, and always will. This is to hard for our human brains to comprehend. As the bible puts it "he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end". The beginning of christianity does not mean the beginning of God or Jesus. Originally the chosen people of God were the Jews (all other races and cultures stemmed from them, through things like the tower of babel, which was when all the different languages were created by God and struck down random people who were building it with the new languages to put a stop to the building of the tower), but when Jesus came in 0 BC to spread the word of God, in short the Jews didn't believe he was the messiah and they crusified him (through the Romans). This caused the Jews to no longer be Gods chosen people, and even today they are still waiting for their Messiah to come. This is when Christianity started (back then it was no way like it is today). That is the history of Christianity in a nutshell according to the Bible. Today Christianity is totally different, many people falsly claim to be men of God and then they go and do completely bad things (eg molest choir boys). Thus given ALL Christians a bad name. Also now a days you've got all your different denominations all with their own stupid slight variations and beliefs etc etc. It is my belief that everyone should read the Bible, or at least learn a little bit about it. It'd only do you good, you can't play ignorant forever.

I only cried when I used to get bullied in year 3. Other than that I've never really cried at school.

Ehehe, I'd have to agree with you there. :lol: My last post was a bit... exhausting to read? :P

Apparently he changed his name to just Diddy because when fans were chanting his name, they'd get confused as to what they were chanting, "P. Diddy" or just "Diddy". So it'd sound really stupid with half saying one and half the other. Pretty lame reason though if you asked me... must be going to his head all this fame business. On Topic: Yeah I heard about the record. It's good what they're doing.

You athiests who claim to be good people because you do good things, but then you don't believe in any supreme being are really quite hypocritical of yourselves. Let me explain.... THE MORAL LAW Following much of C. S. Lewis' thought from Mere Christianity, I wish to explain why the moral nature of the universe points to the existence of God. Here is the basic outline of my argument: 1. There is a universal moral law 2. If there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver 3. Therefore, there must be God There is a Universal Moral Law Why must there be a universal moral law? One reason is that without it, all moral disagreements would make no sense. We appeal to a universal moral standard all the time. If someone cuts in line at an amusement park, we say, "that's not fair." When a psychotic murderer tortures, rapes, and brutally kills his victims, we say, "that's evil." The fact is that we do not have to explain why these things are considered bad or evil. They are morally wrong, and everyone knows it. If a complete stranger walked into your house and picked up your television and started walking out, more than likely you will get up and say something like, "Hey, stop that! That is my tv." What you are doing in that scenario is appealing to a universal moral law. You assume it is an understood standard for all people to follow a principle of not taking things that are not theirs. If this person responded by saying, "So what?", you would probably think that person was strange or crazy. It would be most strange if someone did not understand certain moral values. This is because we assume there is a universal moral law. Another reason why there must be a universal moral law is that all moral judgments would be meaningless. For example, when we say, "The Nazis were wrong to systematically kill the Jews," what do we mean? Does it mean it is just my personal opinion that the Nazis were wrong? If that is so, it does not seem to make much difference what the Nazis do. It would be on par with my difference of opinion regarding chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I do not see any reason to go to war over just my difference of opinion. Or consider the claims against countries who repress women or allow child labor. If there is no universal moral law what do claims against these countries amount to? Without a metaphysical standard, it all amounts to the differences of opinion, but there is no real right or wrong view. In other words, I happen to prefer anti-Nazi morality, and you happen to prefer Nazi morality, but there is no real standard by which we can tell the difference between the two. It is just a matter of opinion. However, it seems clear that is not just a matter of opinion, and this is because we presume there is a universal moral law. A Universal Moral Law Means There Must Be a Law Giver If I have made my point that there is a universal moral law, then the question lingers: how do we account for this moral law? The answer is that there must be a universal moral law Giver. It would be more than just odd if we had this universal moral law without someone to give it. In fact, if a universal moral law just arbitrarily existed on its own (which is unlikely, but we'll just assume it for the sake of argument), then it would seem there is no moral foundation for believing it. Sure, it exists, but that does not explain why it is the right standard to obey. The plain truth is that laws exist, because someone wrote them. What can we know about this universal moral law Giver? Just on the evidence of the moral law, I believe we can deduce (at least) three attributes of the moral law Giver. First, the moral law Giver must be the kind of being that gives moral commands. Otherwise, there would no moral law which we follow. Second, the moral law Giver must be interested in our behavior. Why give rules and laws if there is no interest in how we live? The law Giver must be concerned with how we're living, or else He wouldn't give us guidelines on how to behave. Third, the moral law Giver must be absolutely good. In order to set the absolute standard of what is right and wrong, this law Giver must be qualified to do so. The typical crisis at this point is called the "Euthyphro dilemma" (named after Plato's dialogue that first pointed this out). It seems that we are stuck saying either (a) whatever the moral law Giver wills is right, because He says so or (B) the moral law Giver commands what is right. The dilemma is that (a) suggests the moral law is just the arbitrary whims of the moral law Giver, hence He could have made anything (like rape or murder) morally right, and (B) suggests that there is something higher than the moral law Giver. However, there is a way to escape this dilemma, and that is by saying that the moral law emmanates from the eternal nature of the moral law Giver. In other words, the moral law Giver's inherent nature is good, so what flows from Him will be good. Therefore, God Must Exist From the logic it follows that there is a moral law, which came from a moral law Giver who is absolutely good. It is not a far stretch to see that God is the only being who fits the criteria of moral law Giver. Who else is in a position over the universe to give a moral law? Who else would be concerned about the behavior of humans? Who else is eternally and absolutely good? The answer is no one but God alone. To deny God as the moral law Giver is to deny the only reasonable foundation for meaningful morality. Naturally, some have objected to this, and I will explore some of these objections below. Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?" By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This would mean that whatever the strongest impulse in us is we ought to follow it. The problem with this is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. Morality is more than just our physical nature. It seems absurdly false that the sermon on the mount came from primordial ooze. You cannot get something like morality from something like nature, herd instinct, or evolution. Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention? We often learn morality through social convention, but that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We learn things also like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. It is strange that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality, but not individuals. It is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, this would also lead to other problems like all societies being morally equal (hence Nazi society is as equally moral as Mother Theresa), and moral progress within a society would be impossible to measure. How could we say society improved, if the standard is set by society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are evil, since they oppose what is acceptable according to social convention. Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention. Is the Moral Law My Will Itself? Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law. Could There Be No Moral Law? Perhaps we have these moral intuitions, but they are all just our own fancy. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could just cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa). Conclusion It seems there is a moral law. The best explanation for this moral law is that it has come from a moral law Giver who is an absolutely good God. Other explanations fall short to account for the nature of morality. All of these other explanations attempt to reduce morality to something within nature. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, these fail, because the moral law Giver is more like a Mind than something in nature. He could be no more a part of nature than an architect could be identical to the building he designed. Therefore, the moral nature of the universe points to something beyond the universe to the existence of God.

1. Usually 10 hours. 2. A mixture of both. 3. Computer Pixeling just takes practice. Hopefully one day I'll be able to make those cool pixel pictures that the professionals make.[/img]

Volcom's a snowboarding company, and I've seen another tipit user with the name "volcom" (not accusing, just saying) so I assume it's not so odd to see it used by various people. It's a fairly famous surf brand here in Australia (cause we don't have much snow :lol: ). And yeah, I didn't entirely think it was you -volcom-... as stated in my original post. Sorry about the damaging of your name. Any news about anything being done to this ripper?

Yeah, looks a lot like Terleys... except a heck of a lot less quality put into it. Try and think of something original.

I've been playing Battlefield 2 a lot. At one stage I was ranked 500th out of 700,000. 8) No way man, assault and support all the way!

You're kinda missing the point. The main point is that you will be dead, and the dead know nothing (according to the bible, it's like sleep, except without dreams... :P ). Talking about sleep, I need some know. I'm starting to blabber on about who knows what. I just hope that you feel that you made the right decision. A lot of people are scared of thoughts that there might be something more to life then partying hard / enjoying yourself. More to life then dying. PM me if you wish. :)

An excellent and most valid point. We do have a choice, a choice to believe in God (to believe what he says) and to accept his gift of eternal life or the more negetive choice. To be an athiest, bluntly ignore God throughout your life, maybe fulfill a few of your aspirations and then die. There's no more... You're gone. You'll be forgotten. That's it, no more for you. I really do prefer option number 1. How 'bout you?

anti-women anti-human rights anti-contraception anti-freedom of choice anti-sexual freedom (*, *, bi, tg etc) ? Yeah I have to agree... Catholics... *thumbs down*. (I'm a protestant, of no particular demonination. I just like to call myself a christian).

I can see a flame war starting. I don't have time to type everything out so I'm just going to look at a few of your points. Since when did I say we are perfect? I agree, we are far from perfect, thanks to sin. And you are just another "I believe everything that the system tells me" person. Break out of your shell and think for yourself, don't let the fascist way that this planet is run govern your thoughts. The fossil record, completely devoid of so called "intermediate species". There is only a handful of debatable so called intermediate fossils ever found. Darwin recognised this hole in the fossil record and hoped that it would be cleared up with the increase in technology over the years. That never came true. You say that there isn't any proof for intelligent design? How bout the fossil record? It's there as plain as day for anyone to see, Fully developed animals appear in the fossil record. Thanks for sharing your opinion on that one, unfortunately your dogmatic approach to that one doesn't really convery much information. And evolution is untestable too. Have you been back in time and seen how the universe started with the 'big bang'? Have you read from a primary source about how things evolved? I can assume that you're going to point to all the dating methods of rocks and bones and things for this one. A pity that all that dating is just a fancy way of saying "I think that this is about x years old". See here for more info on that one (I'm getting tired). I could say exactly the same thing about evolution. There is 0 evidence for particles to people evolution, the only thing you'll find is people assuming and day dreaming about what happened. You must be listening / reading about very foolish creationists. I myself would never do that. See here on what REAL scientists believe about creation. You're using the straw man yourself here, supporting your position by saying that everyone who believes in ID are egg heads and don't really know anything about ID (that is true for some people I guess, but then again you have the same kind of people with evolution. They just believe in it because that's what society says. You fail to see that a significant (infact overwhelming) proportion of inventions and discoveries have been made by creationists. These people are all creationists who made incredible discoveries... Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Sir Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, William Herschel, John Herschel, Samuel F. B. Morse, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage , William Thomson Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, James Irwin and Wernher von Braun. So... they learned nothing eh? :) If we are all just accidents of evolution, then why should I believe that one accident (ie mercifull) can account for all other accidents? If we're just all accidents, we're nothing. Look at the size of the universe, now look at the size of you or I. According to mercifull's (and many other peoples) beliefs, we don't mean jack to anything. We're just going to die and we will be forgotten. So why not just die now? Cause our lives are meaningless... :? I don't think I will contribute to this thread anymore, it is too exhausting and time consuming to type this much. I much prefer to debate in voice, and I do enjoy a bit of the old brain stimulation (makes me think whenever I debate about topics such as this). By the way, don't take any of this personally mercifull, I'm sure you're a great guy and we're just having a friendly debate, right? I respect you're opinion, even though I may get a little heated in the middle of it all. :) Thanks for reading and cheers.

Morality. I'm a good person. Ive said this many times before but ill say it again. I do good stuff to people, I help out charities and donate a lot of my time and money to help other people. I don't do anything illegal and I'm nice to my friends and family. I don't belive in god yet i'm still more of a christian than most christians. Being good to other people is about having morals and respect, you dont need "god" to tell you whats right and wrong. You know whats right without being told, or at least I do. You are simply blinded by faith in something which does not exist. And for the record, look at New Orleans, one of the most right wing religious areas in America. In the time of need and in the time of despair in the superdome people were being stabbed, raped and killed. Horray for god. Here's a great quote I love to use... You don't even know what you're saying mercifull, because you were just an accidental by-product of the evolution of man. All your thoughts are just accidents, all your actions are accidents. Infact, if you don't believe in some sort of supreme being, YOU MEAN NOTHING! When you die, you will be forgotten over the hundreds of years that are yet to take place. Everyone posting in this board will eventually be forgotten. No one means anything to anybody because we're all just accidental by-products of the evolution of a perfect human! I may aswell just go and kill myself right now... :wink:

Oh dear you poor delusion boy / girl. If there was no god, then why believe in rules? Why believe in order? If there is no god, then there is no right and wrong, because it was god who instilled in us the human nature to make us think "hey, killing someone is wrong". I could talk heaps more about this but I couldn't be bothered typing more. To sum it all up I believe in God, I'm a christian. :) I think that believing in a "higher being that loves you so much that he gave his only son to die for you" is much better than believing in nothing. So if you believe in nothing, you have no purpose in life other than to party hard, screw as many chicks as you can (to ensure your genes is passed on) and then die when you're time is up. Wow, what a bleak outlook... If our kids are being brought up to not believe in a god, no wonder there are more suicides, school shootings, murders and bombings then ever before... Because hey! THERE AREN'T ANY RULES!! :wink:

I speak Australian... :lol: (and some random phrases to insult people in latin).

Oh come on now, surely you can think of a better NIN song than Closer. That's one of the most over-rated songs in history. Guns 'N Roses - Night train... for teh win. 8)

Yeah no offense man but that looks not too great. I think some practice is in order for you (or finding a better "web page maker").

Oh dear... that made me laugh. :lol: Silly ripper.

Well at the moment we have no evidence that they are actually the same person. It's not like there'd only be one person called volcom (it being a transcontinental brand and all). But still, you can't help thinking that they might be the same person (although it would be really quite silly to call yourself the same name on numerous boards if you're a ripper :roll: ).

If this volcom that I'm talking about is not the same volcom that is here at tip.it, I apologise for the mess up. But you have to admit, it looks supicious. Anway... http://liquidclock.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3031 - Volcom tries to sell sigs from here. (Ugh, the stupid filter mucked up the url, just go to it through the above url) - The website that's trying to sell the sigs (linked to by volcom). I believe that those sigs are done by terley and RcS89, plus a few of the avatars by mrxman.

Yeah I can't see a head. Headless chaos terminator? :? And Eldar are definetly the best. 8)

They're all quite nice. I think I'd chop off winter though, it's a bit... lame? :)

Looks much better man. I'd still say that eye looks a little off though. But heck, it looks amazing. :)

HAH... you mean people like yourself?? :roll: 8)