Quote by Brinyes my friend recently showed
me some pete seeger and i've always liked woody guthrie but other than that i
really don't know any other folk bands, have any good
recommendations?
yes my friend recently showed me some pete seeger and i've always liked woody
guthrie but other than that i really don't know any other folk bands, have any
good recommendations?
and I have this, which I am debating on the issue right now.
If God does not exist morality would still be possible, because we have the
ability to choose between actions, which may have positive, negative, or
positive and negative intentions and effects.......Therefore, morality can exist
without God.
Sure it can. Remember, different society's throughout time
had different moral codes and values.
Quote by Shinsengumi89Three
Specials, one on Muslims, one on the Jews, and one on Christians. They talked to
fundamentalists of each religion, and to "liberals" of each religion.
For example they talked to Falwell, and Jimmy Carter, two exact opposites who
claim both to be Christian. It was good for Cable TV.
Quote by ProgramZEROConnection too
slow. What was it about mainly?
Three Specials, one on Muslims, one on the Jews, and one on Christians
\.
They talked to fundamentalists of each religion, and to "liberals" of
each religion. For example they talked to Falwell, and Jimmy Carter, two exact
opposites who claim both to be Christian.
It was good for Cable TV.
Welcome back Devildude, I'll read the post you made, when i have time. As to how
I'm doing.... fairly well.
Interesting article about another possible Homosexual Republican, who has always
"preached" against homosexuality.
and I have this, which I am debating on the issue right now.
If God does not exist morality would still be possible, because we have the
ability to choose between actions, which may have positive, negative, or
positive and negative intentions and effects.
Whether one’s definition of morality is based on intentions such as
Kant’s, or is based on effects, morality can exist without God. Strictly
in the simplest of terms, we can equate positive and negative with good and bad.
For example, if life is positive and death is negative, and positive is good and
negative is bad: then wanting to put someone to death or actually putting
someone to death is bad. What is to be positive and negative is defined by
personal experience.
Morality can be based on personal experience, which might explain why different
cultures have different morals.
People with no sense of religion or God only have past experiences and what they
know to base their future actions on. Past experiences use the positive or
negative outcome as a basis for the action taken. The experience is positive if
the experience led to good health or a feeling of well-being either physically
or mentally, and negative if the experience led to bad health and not
well-being.
For example, if a group of children were only taught how to survive in the
wild, and then let them loose on a deserted island with out teaching them about
any sort of God, or right and wrong, they could learn what is right and wrong
through experience. If one of the children hits another and the other child
begins to cry he has created a negative response. Naturally, the children would
most likely try to stay away from negative responses to ensure better health of
themselves and others. If the child who was hit, child one, became angered by
another child, child two, and hit them, most likely child one would refer back
to when they were hit and feel bad about what they had done, because the
experience they had with being hit was paired with a negative feeling, pain.
If child one had not been hit before, then they would have nothing to feel bad
about and therefore to them it would be a positive experience, unless child one
was then hit by child two, or another child. Then the experience would be
negative. Some may argue that for instance, a businessman could consider
cheating someone out of money a positive experience, but if he was cheated he
would feel it as a negative experience.
Therefore, he knows it is wrong to cheat because of the result on the person he
cheated, but he does it anyway for personal gain. Even if he was not cheated on
before, he might eventually be cheated and see it another way, just as the child
saw hitting someone in a different way after they were hit. In this way God is
not needed to have morality.
People may contrast that God has to exist for morality to exist, because that is
the only way for there to be a standard set of morals. No one understands right
and wrong at birth, so how could anyone fathom what that set of morals would be.
Even when morality is taught to children by parents, those parents were once
naïve children as well. So, morality must have evolved from the
experiences of many generations, passed down what they have learned through the
actions they have taken.
Even though there cannot be a standard set of rules without religion or God, for
example the Ten Commandments, does not mean that there cannot be morality.
Morality could evolve from experience just like the children on the island.
Morality does not have to be standard; it could be a process such as using what
you have been through to more adequately judge what is right and wrong.
Kant states that morality is based only on pure reason alone and not experience,
but to logically deduct what your duty may be you must have some sort of
experience to base your logic off of. We are not born knowing we are rational
beings, if we are born rational beings at all. Knowing you are a rational being
comes through experience. Humans may be born with minds that can logically think
through situations, but without any experience how can you logically come to a
conclusion on what to do? For example, when children are young they might touch
a stove and burn themselves. Unless they were told it is hot in the first place
a child has nothing to base there actions off of.
Therefore, the effects are much more important than intention of the person,
because that intention is based off of past effects, or experiences.
God does not have to exist for morality to exist, because we have the ability to
choose between actions.
These actions may have positive, negative, or positive and negative intentions
and effects. Positive actions promote health and well-being while negative
actions promote the opposite.
The positive or negative experiences rational beings go through are the building
blocks to base what logically would be the right thing to do. Such as the
children on the deserted island who learned that hitting others is wrong through
trial and error. Therefore, morality can exist without God.
Quote by ProgramZERODarn, I wish I
did. How was it?
It was surprisingly good (i.e., factual) for CNN. Usually there's an obvious
Christian bias when it comes to religious stuff on CNN. I only watched the
Jewish one and a tiny bit of the Christian one (all three were aired last
night).
You can probably find some clips on YouTube. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orG59apfX9I
Quote by Persocom01Also considering
the possibility that Atheists might be more likely to respond yes if they did
help the undeserved and not respond at all if they didn't, I would hardly count
it a scientific survey. (also allowing for marginal error) Atheists tend to like
being vocal and projecting a positive image of themselves more than
traditionally religious people in my experience. (to counter popular perception
of their immorallity)
We're not talking about the average atheist stereotype you've developed.
Religious doctors are probably less religious than the average religious person
and as result it may be that because they aren't as religious than average
people, they are less likely to help the poor. I'd guess the average atheist is
less likely to help the poor than the average theist. That would probably be
because churches, mosques, etc. tend to be pretty good at organizing the devout
to help out, because they believe it is God will for them to help the poor (and
they like listening to what they believe is God's will, for better or for
worse), and because helping poor people is a "good" evangelism
technique, if in fact theists are more likely to help the poor (which I think is
very likely).
Don't take that so seriously. I don't even know why so many people voted there.
I'm doing my part to mention here because I want to see their reaction, if they
have one, since the results are obviously absurd. And I don't see how that has
anything to do with projecting a positive image of atheists.
Quote by Persocom01I would consider it
intelligent design concept proof if they actually suceeded in designing
life
I think everyone knows it's possible that we we're intelligently designed. I'm
glad you're okay with it though. It must be the different cultures. Over in the
United States some of the Christians often hate the idea of people creating life
and saying it would be playing God. The reason they say that is, of course, that
they don't want us to get a better understanding of life out of fear their
beliefs might become even less feasible (which may or may not actually be the
case).
Quote by Persocom01I consider it quite
laughable and I hope this will be pinned so that we can all see when it fails
(or succeeds) in 3-10 years (hopefully it doesn't take too long) time.
Unfortunately though, like all failed Darwinian predictions, it tends to get
buried in the sand and forgotten when the time does come. (I bet it's not even
going to be reported)
You have no idea. The media in the United States would love to find something
that hurts the theory of evolution (or could be interpreted as such).
merged: 08-25-2007 ~ 12:52pm
Also, here's what the poll was like only 5 days ago (though apparently it's over
now):
Christianity 63% 622
Judaism 5% 52
Islam 1% 8
Buddhism 1% 12
Hinduism 1% 7
Jehovah's Witnesses 1% 12
Atheism 6% 62
Agnostic 5% 48
I am spiritual, but of no religion 13% 130
Mine's not listed 3% 29
Quote by littlejonny100Completely
agreeing with marfish that it's not a question of 'if' but rather 'when'. To
relate the actual project to Darwinian evolution is quite wrong. What that
comment suggested (at least in my mind) is that they're hopeful they'll be able
to create an artificial life-form, however they don't expect it to live long at
first. That comment would have been referring to them placing their hopes
(possibly quite highly) that some form of evolution will allow the cell to
overcome any of the scientists compositional flaws and stay alive a bit
longer.
LOL! I wouldn't expect this life-form to last long.
We have to start somewhere. In this case, we are creating life! We can expect
many failures before we can start seeing some success.
LOL! Screwing with polls is
fun! I like to write down 'ear wax' flavor on ice cream surveys just for fun.
Quote by Persocom01I consider it quite
laughable and I hope this will be pinned so that we can all see when it fails
(or succeeds) in 3-10 years (hopefully it doesn't take too long) time.
Unfortunately though, like all failed Darwinian predictions, it tends to get
buried in the sand and forgotten when the time does
come.
Although the survey is quite gratifying, it really shouldn't be counted as any
form of evidence. As many have said you shouldn't think for a moment human
qualities are religiously grouped, that being said I've met plenty of
'religious' people who would go to hell by any persons standards.
Completely agreeing with marfish that it's not a question of 'if' but rather
'when'. To relate the actual project to Darwinian evolution is quite wrong. What
that comment suggested (at least in my mind) is that they're hopeful they'll be
able to create an artificial life-form, however they don't expect it to live
long at first.
That comment would have been referring to them placing their hopes (possibly
quite highly) that some form of evolution will allow the cell to overcome any of
the scientists compositional flaws and stay alive a bit longer.
Persocom01, asking that the creation of life wont take too long? By scientific
explanation it took a 'very long time' (don't ask me how long it was, I forget
now ) for the first forms of life to be created and by religious
reasoning.....we're not god. They should be able to create artificial life
within 10 years, however being able to create an artificial life form with
either an extended lifespan + ability to reproduce or a specified purpose will
probably take much longer than that. In terms of it being buried if it does
fail?...there's really not much point reporting a failure and I'm sure that's
the last thing anyone wants to do after dedicating 10 years of their life to
something (starts thinking about people who have dedicated a lifetime to
achieving an afterlife that may not exist...)
Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, it
only describes how life has created such complex creatures like humans. Anyway,
scientists have already created the necessary requirements for life, just not
all at once, so it is not a question of if, but when. Anyway, the earth has had
billions of years, spanning all over the planet, with every condition spanning
from heated molten rock, to frozen methane. If scientists can do it with their
tiny laboratories, then how could the earth not?
Hmm the response rate was only 63%. Also considering the possibility that
Atheists might be more likely to respond yes if they did help the undeserved and
not respond at all if they didn't, I would hardly count it a scientific survey.
(also allowing for marginal error) Atheists tend to like being vocal and
projecting a positive image of themselves more than traditionally religious
people in my experience. (to counter popular perception of their immorallity)
See also http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
(compare the percentage of Atheists in the actual population - 5.2%
"according to the national survey of 1,721 Americans, by far the most
comprehensive national religion survey to date." by Baylor University
sociologist Rodney Stark: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm
- to the percentage of Atheists who actually voted - 71% I didn't bother voting
fyi)
Quote by yothsothgothOh, I just saw
this: Scientists
will soon create life. I wonder what kind of repercussions could come from
this... good and bad... though which will prevail?
I would consider it intelligent design concept proof if they actually suceeded
in designing life, (well at least the machinery) however considering they
said:
"His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides
in the right proportions, then
Darwinian evolution could simply take over." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/>1=10252
I consider it quite laughable and I hope this will be pinned so that we can all
see when it fails (or succeeds) in 3-10 years (hopefully it doesn't take too
long) time. Unfortunately though, like all failed Darwinian predictions, it
tends to get buried in the sand and forgotten when the time does come. (I bet
it's not even going to be reported)
Sorry i haven't been active on MT Lately but my Comp is having trouble
connecting to Minitokyo... Weird
Well it looks like we have a few new members so thats good. Heres a great quote
i found,apprantely it's the Buddha's final words, or something to that
affect.
" Be Ye Lamps Unto Yourselves"- The Buddha
Also i noticed how long and futile the religious debates have gotten, i myself
have decided that i will not longer participate in any current one, i will also
probably not participate in them anymore, unless is see something horrendous.
As a Secular Humanist and Atheist i feel that fighting about this will do no
good at this point, but only action in the real world will change things.
In my opinion we should try to work to solve the problem of bigotry, religion
and environmental ignorance, by targeting the heart of the problem, education.
Fighting with the religious directly will do nothing only participating in
groups, political parties, rallies and government will change things, if you
can't change the people of this generation change the next.
Quote by yothsothgothOh, I just saw
this: Scientists
will soon create life. I wonder what kind of repercussions could come from
this... good and bad... though which will prevail?
Quote by ProgramZEROBug report? I
still don't get it...
When a programmer creates a program people who use the program can sometimes
file bug reports if the use finds out there's something wrong with the program.
This implies that God messed up because of how many stupid things people
willingly believe and the guy is trying to file a bug report with God.
merged: 08-22-2007 ~ 11:21am
Anyone interested should vote that they're an atheist--even if you aren't an
atheist--here: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
Don't ask why. Just do it. =D
As it is with all studies and polls, they
aren't all 100 percent accurate. I don't really give much weight to studies but
they are good estimates. As for this one, I don't care for it, I care more for
the fact that there are good doctors who serve the underprivileged than
anything. Good find though yothsothgoth.
Quote by Shinsengumi89Hey everyone
i�?�?�¨m back from Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward Island and New Bunswick (All Canada)?
So what have i missed
The "Trial of the Century". LOL!
Quote by yothsothgothOh, I just saw
this: Scientists
will soon create life. I wonder what kind of repercussions could come from
this... good and bad... though which will prevail?
Wow! You
know, if we're successful in this endeavor, it'll be one of the defining moments
of the 21st Century!
Kind of like the moon landing! It is also kind of scary like the detonation of
the first atomic bomb!
"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few
people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu
scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he
should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says,
'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that
one way or another."
-Oppenheimer
One of my favorite quotes. Tragic how science offers us many ways to save
ourselves and at the same time to kill ourselves also. When you learn that the
heart is necessary for survival, you also learn it is necessary for survival,
you know what I mean?
Quote by Auriellethanks for accepting me
in da group...is there any forum i could join? thanks
You
could consider this a forum and just post anything on your mind here!
Welcome!
Quote by yothsothgothIf you are an
atheist, do you think its right or wrong to expose your children to
religion?
I'd raise children to believe in something only if
there was good reason to believe it. You wouldn't trust a stranger who promised
you one million dollars right off the bat. My kids would grow up to be skeptical
and to challenge anything they felt was wrong.
Oh, I just saw this: Scientists will soon
create life. I wonder what kind of repercussions could come from this...
good and bad... though which will prevail?
You actually read the second book? o.o
I have in fact I've read two of them. The first and Second books listed.
BTW, has anyone checked out the books in the book list?
I posted a few in your guestbook.
yes my friend recently showed me some pete seeger and i've always liked woody guthrie but other than that i really don't know any other folk bands, have any good recommendations?
Thats exactly what i was thinking.
On another note, i respect jimmy Carter and Al Gore( they both Claim to be True Christians, but they do not force it on others...
EDIT: Interesting Article about how Gore Airlifted patients from after the Katrina Disaster.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/7/164747/4155
EDIT #2:
I was wondering does anyone here listen to Folk music?
That sort of reminds me of Ted Haggard...
Sure it can. Remember, different society's throughout time had different moral codes and values.
Dang! Now I wish I had seen them!
I'm not surprised. LOL!
Three Specials, one on Muslims, one on the Jews, and one on Christians \.
They talked to fundamentalists of each religion, and to "liberals" of each religion. For example they talked to Falwell, and Jimmy Carter, two exact opposites who claim both to be Christian.
It was good for Cable TV.
Welcome back Devildude, I'll read the post you made, when i have time. As to how I'm doing.... fairly well.
Interesting article about another possible Homosexual Republican, who has always "preached" against homosexuality.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html
sorry I haven't been here.
hows everyone?
and I have this, which I am debating on the issue right now.
If God does not exist morality would still be possible, because we have the ability to choose between actions, which may have positive, negative, or positive and negative intentions and effects.
Whether one’s definition of morality is based on intentions such as Kant’s, or is based on effects, morality can exist without God. Strictly in the simplest of terms, we can equate positive and negative with good and bad. For example, if life is positive and death is negative, and positive is good and negative is bad: then wanting to put someone to death or actually putting someone to death is bad. What is to be positive and negative is defined by personal experience.
Morality can be based on personal experience, which might explain why different cultures have different morals.
People with no sense of religion or God only have past experiences and what they know to base their future actions on. Past experiences use the positive or negative outcome as a basis for the action taken. The experience is positive if the experience led to good health or a feeling of well-being either physically or mentally, and negative if the experience led to bad health and not well-being.
For example, if a group of children were only taught how to survive in the wild, and then let them loose on a deserted island with out teaching them about any sort of God, or right and wrong, they could learn what is right and wrong through experience. If one of the children hits another and the other child begins to cry he has created a negative response. Naturally, the children would most likely try to stay away from negative responses to ensure better health of themselves and others. If the child who was hit, child one, became angered by another child, child two, and hit them, most likely child one would refer back to when they were hit and feel bad about what they had done, because the experience they had with being hit was paired with a negative feeling, pain.
If child one had not been hit before, then they would have nothing to feel bad about and therefore to them it would be a positive experience, unless child one was then hit by child two, or another child. Then the experience would be negative. Some may argue that for instance, a businessman could consider cheating someone out of money a positive experience, but if he was cheated he would feel it as a negative experience.
Therefore, he knows it is wrong to cheat because of the result on the person he cheated, but he does it anyway for personal gain. Even if he was not cheated on before, he might eventually be cheated and see it another way, just as the child saw hitting someone in a different way after they were hit. In this way God is not needed to have morality.
People may contrast that God has to exist for morality to exist, because that is the only way for there to be a standard set of morals. No one understands right and wrong at birth, so how could anyone fathom what that set of morals would be. Even when morality is taught to children by parents, those parents were once naïve children as well. So, morality must have evolved from the experiences of many generations, passed down what they have learned through the actions they have taken.
Even though there cannot be a standard set of rules without religion or God, for example the Ten Commandments, does not mean that there cannot be morality. Morality could evolve from experience just like the children on the island. Morality does not have to be standard; it could be a process such as using what you have been through to more adequately judge what is right and wrong.
Kant states that morality is based only on pure reason alone and not experience, but to logically deduct what your duty may be you must have some sort of experience to base your logic off of. We are not born knowing we are rational beings, if we are born rational beings at all. Knowing you are a rational being comes through experience. Humans may be born with minds that can logically think through situations, but without any experience how can you logically come to a conclusion on what to do? For example, when children are young they might touch a stove and burn themselves. Unless they were told it is hot in the first place a child has nothing to base there actions off of.
Therefore, the effects are much more important than intention of the person, because that intention is based off of past effects, or experiences.
God does not have to exist for morality to exist, because we have the ability to choose between actions.
These actions may have positive, negative, or positive and negative intentions and effects. Positive actions promote health and well-being while negative actions promote the opposite.
The positive or negative experiences rational beings go through are the building blocks to base what logically would be the right thing to do. Such as the children on the deserted island who learned that hitting others is wrong through trial and error. Therefore, morality can exist without God.
Connection too slow. What was it about mainly?
It was surprisingly good (i.e., factual) for CNN. Usually there's an obvious Christian bias when it comes to religious stuff on CNN. I only watched the Jewish one and a tiny bit of the Christian one (all three were aired last night).
You can probably find some clips on YouTube. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orG59apfX9I
Darn, I wish I did. How was it?
I have to agree with Alex, the Media in the United States would publish anything that might discredit Darwin.
Did anyone see those CNN specials about "God's Warriors"?
We're not talking about the average atheist stereotype you've developed. Religious doctors are probably less religious than the average religious person and as result it may be that because they aren't as religious than average people, they are less likely to help the poor. I'd guess the average atheist is less likely to help the poor than the average theist. That would probably be because churches, mosques, etc. tend to be pretty good at organizing the devout to help out, because they believe it is God will for them to help the poor (and they like listening to what they believe is God's will, for better or for worse), and because helping poor people is a "good" evangelism technique, if in fact theists are more likely to help the poor (which I think is very likely).
Don't take that so seriously. I don't even know why so many people voted there. I'm doing my part to mention here because I want to see their reaction, if they have one, since the results are obviously absurd. And I don't see how that has anything to do with projecting a positive image of atheists.
I think everyone knows it's possible that we we're intelligently designed. I'm glad you're okay with it though. It must be the different cultures. Over in the United States some of the Christians often hate the idea of people creating life and saying it would be playing God. The reason they say that is, of course, that they don't want us to get a better understanding of life out of fear their beliefs might become even less feasible (which may or may not actually be the case).
You have no idea. The media in the United States would love to find something that hurts the theory of evolution (or could be interpreted as such).
merged: 08-25-2007 ~ 12:52pm
Also, here's what the poll was like only 5 days ago (though apparently it's over now):
Christianity 63% 622
Judaism 5% 52
Islam 1% 8
Buddhism 1% 12
Hinduism 1% 7
Jehovah's Witnesses 1% 12
Atheism 6% 62
Agnostic 5% 48
I am spiritual, but of no religion 13% 130
Mine's not listed 3% 29
(Source: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4721253 while searching for "quick vote larry king" in Google (no quotes))
LOL! I wouldn't expect this life-form to last long. We have to start somewhere. In this case, we are creating life! We can expect many failures before we can start seeing some success.
LOL! Screwing with polls is fun! I like to write down 'ear wax' flavor on ice cream surveys just for fun.
Which predictions would these be?
Although the survey is quite gratifying, it really shouldn't be counted as any form of evidence. As many have said you shouldn't think for a moment human qualities are religiously grouped, that being said I've met plenty of 'religious' people who would go to hell by any persons standards.
Completely agreeing with marfish that it's not a question of 'if' but rather 'when'. To relate the actual project to Darwinian evolution is quite wrong. What that comment suggested (at least in my mind) is that they're hopeful they'll be able to create an artificial life-form, however they don't expect it to live long at first.
That comment would have been referring to them placing their hopes (possibly quite highly) that some form of evolution will allow the cell to overcome any of the scientists compositional flaws and stay alive a bit longer.
Persocom01, asking that the creation of life wont take too long? By scientific explanation it took a 'very long time' (don't ask me how long it was, I forget now
) for the first forms of life to be created and by religious
reasoning.....we're not god. They should be able to create artificial life
within 10 years, however being able to create an artificial life form with
either an extended lifespan + ability to reproduce or a specified purpose will
probably take much longer than that. In terms of it being buried if it does
fail?...there's really not much point reporting a failure and I'm sure that's
the last thing anyone wants to do after dedicating 10 years of their life to
something (starts thinking about people who have dedicated a lifetime to
achieving an afterlife that may not exist...)
Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, it only describes how life has created such complex creatures like humans. Anyway, scientists have already created the necessary requirements for life, just not all at once, so it is not a question of if, but when. Anyway, the earth has had billions of years, spanning all over the planet, with every condition spanning from heated molten rock, to frozen methane. If scientists can do it with their tiny laboratories, then how could the earth not?
Hmm the response rate was only 63%. Also considering the possibility that Atheists might be more likely to respond yes if they did help the undeserved and not respond at all if they didn't, I would hardly count it a scientific survey. (also allowing for marginal error) Atheists tend to like being vocal and projecting a positive image of themselves more than traditionally religious people in my experience. (to counter popular perception of their immorallity) See also http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/ (compare the percentage of Atheists in the actual population - 5.2% "according to the national survey of 1,721 Americans, by far the most comprehensive national religion survey to date." by Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm - to the percentage of Atheists who actually voted - 71% I didn't bother voting fyi)
I would consider it intelligent design concept proof if they actually suceeded in designing life, (well at least the machinery) however considering they said:
"His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/>1=10252
I consider it quite laughable and I hope this will be pinned so that we can all see when it fails (or succeeds) in 3-10 years (hopefully it doesn't take too long) time. Unfortunately though, like all failed Darwinian predictions, it tends to get buried in the sand and forgotten when the time does come. (I bet it's not even going to be reported)
Sorry i haven't been active on MT Lately but my Comp is having trouble connecting to Minitokyo... Weird
Well it looks like we have a few new members so thats good. Heres a great quote i found,apprantely it's the Buddha's final words, or something to that affect.
" Be Ye Lamps Unto Yourselves"- The Buddha
Also i noticed how long and futile the religious debates have gotten, i myself have decided that i will not longer participate in any current one, i will also probably not participate in them anymore, unless is see something horrendous.
As a Secular Humanist and Atheist i feel that fighting about this will do no good at this point, but only action in the real world will change things.
In my opinion we should try to work to solve the problem of bigotry, religion and environmental ignorance, by targeting the heart of the problem, education.
Fighting with the religious directly will do nothing only participating in groups, political parties, rallies and government will change things, if you can't change the people of this generation change the next.
I think I gotta start reading this guy more..
Wow, currently 71% voted as atheist. I am highly impressed.
You've seriously got to be reading Pharyngula. =P
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wait_until_the_creationists_tr.php
merged: 08-22-2007 ~ 10:34am
When a programmer creates a program people who use the program can sometimes file bug reports if the use finds out there's something wrong with the program. This implies that God messed up because of how many stupid things people willingly believe and the guy is trying to file a bug report with God.
merged: 08-22-2007 ~ 11:21am
Anyone interested should vote that they're an atheist--even if you aren't an atheist--here: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
Don't ask why. Just do it. =D
As it is with all studies and polls, they aren't all 100 percent accurate. I don't really give much weight to studies but they are good estimates. As for this one, I don't care for it, I care more for the fact that there are good doctors who serve the underprivileged than anything. Good find though yothsothgoth.
The "Trial of the Century". LOL!
Wow! You know, if we're successful in this endeavor, it'll be one of the defining moments of the 21st Century!
Kind of like the moon landing! It is also kind of scary like the detonation of
the first atomic bomb!
"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that one way or another."
-Oppenheimer
One of my favorite quotes. Tragic how science offers us many ways to save ourselves and at the same time to kill ourselves also. When you learn that the heart is necessary for survival, you also learn it is necessary for survival, you know what I mean?
You could consider this a forum and just post anything on your mind here! Welcome!
I'd raise children to believe in something only if there was good reason to believe it. You wouldn't trust a stranger who promised you one million dollars right off the bat. My kids would grow up to be skeptical and to challenge anything they felt was wrong.
Oh, I just saw this: Scientists will soon create life. I wonder what kind of repercussions could come from this... good and bad... though which will prevail?