Well, I've certainly learned something. In Iran, acts of male and female
homosexuality are illegal but changing your gender isn't. In fact, the
government provides funding for gender-altering operations and hormone therapy
for those who have undergone procedures. I would think Iranian attitude towards
this practice would be to the contrary but that was incorrect.
As for Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University, on homosexuality, Ahmadinejad
simply said that "there are no homosexuals in Iran" which caused
laughter amongst the crowd. On the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad called for more
research to be done on the event. This coming from someone who called the
Holocaust a "fabricated legend" in 2005. Here's a transcript on these
and other issues: Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad
Quote by Shinsengumi89Well it's
been a while since I've been on MT.
So has anyone here seen or read th play Waiting for
Godot?
Waiting for Godot? *Looks up* Sounds good. I'll try to
read it when I get the chance.
Well yes, we all know it should be but that isn't the point
Otherwise it would have already happened.
With advances in technology the ability for science to discover more about the
world around will increase accordingly, if not exponentially. The ability for
Christianity to explain more of itself essentially lies within interpretation of
the bible.....there's not really any technological advance that will aid its
development. Science teaches us something new everyday
You know, until there are experiments that seem to support ID or Creationism, it
should be excluded from any publicly funded schools and such. No such
experiments are available and, IMO, will never be available so...
Quote by littlejonny100Secondly I
found it humorous that even if creationism were correct, it only points to an
intelligent designer.
Creationism specifically says it was a god who did it. It most often refers to
Christianity, but there's also Islamic Creationism, for example, that the
fundamentalist Muslims believe in. It's basically believing in the creation myth
of one's religion. So, if (Christian) Creationism were correct, it would not
only mean there was some intelligent designer. That designer would be the
Christian god.
Quote by littlejonny100P.S. So
ah....what was the difference between creationism and intelligent design.
Intelligent design doesn't specifically say god so it become
science?
No, the idea was to make it secular, so it wouldn't violate the United States'
(and other countries') separation of church and state. That way they could use
public schools to propagate their religion. Of course, they still haven't
overcome the fact that it isn't scientific, even if it's secular.
Hey, if we need songs having to do with religion, could "Tomorrow Never
Knows" be replaced with "The God that Failed" by Metallica?
Here are the lyrics. They've to do with faith healing ("broken is the
promise, betrayal the healing hand held back by the deepened nail") and
cancer ("it feeds, it grows"):
Pride you took
pride you feel
pride that you felt when you would kneel
not the word
not the love
not what you thought from above
it feeds
it grows
it clouds all that you will know
deceit
deceive
decide just what you believe
I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail
follow the god that failed
find your peace
find your say
find the smooth road in your way
trust you gave
a child to save
left you cold and him in grave
it feeds
it grows
it clouds all that you will know
deceit
deceive
decide just what you believe
I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail
follow the god that failed
I see faith in your eyes
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail
follow the god that failed
pride you took
pride you feel
pride that you felt when you'd kneel
trust you gave
a child to save
left you cold and him in grave
I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by deepened nail
Follow the god that failed... ye-yeah!
Broken is the promise, betrayal, betrayal, Yeah
Quote by littlejonny100Sorry to
break the flow but many of you have probably seen http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/dover_trial_intelligent_design.php
by now. If not, as always, give it a look. Anyways two very specific things
occurred to me while watching that. Firstly it seems that the whole idea of
irreducible complexity is the fact that they already have a direction. In that
example they said something along the lines of you cannot create a moth by
chance. They've completely ignored the fact that a moth was created by chance
and seem to be following the idea that chance is the process used to create a
moth. Chance could have just as easily led to a moth being 5 times larger than
an elephant, if we never knew anything different would we argue it. There seems
to be the notion that nature and random chance has wanted to create these
specific things.
Yeah, I've found this is widely true as well; anti-evolutionists focus on the
random aspect of evolution while completely ignoring natural selection--without
which we wouldn't have evolution at all as we know it.
Quote by littlejonny100P.S. So
ah....what was the difference between creationism and intelligent design.
Intelligent design doesn't specifically say god so it become
science?
It's not science. Almost all scientists will tell you that.
Sorry to break the flow but many of you have probably seen http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/dover_trial_intelligent_design.php
by now. If not, as always, give it a look. Anyways two very specific things
occurred to me while watching that. Firstly it seems that the whole idea of
irreducible complexity is the fact that they already have a direction. In that
example they said something along the lines of you cannot create a moth by
chance. They've completely ignored the fact that a moth was created by chance
and seem to be following the idea that chance is the process used to create a
moth. Chance could have just as easily led to a moth being 5 times larger than
an elephant, if we never knew anything different would we argue it. There seems
to be the notion that nature and random chance has wanted to create these
specific things.
Secondly I found it humorous that even if creationism were correct, it only
points to an intelligent designer. The theory could easily and correctly be used
to prove the existence of aliens right? An intellectually superior and
controlling race of beings who have intelligently created humans and our world,
then planted the idea of god in our heads to cover up their own existence. It
just as plausible as god.
merged: 09-14-2007 ~ 06:56pm
After watching the second half of those videos they also state what I said in
the first part with the example of dealing the cards
P.S. So ah....what was the difference between creationism and intelligent
design. Intelligent design doesn't specifically say god so it become science?
Quote by yothsothgothI saw that too.
Interesting if true, though... I believe for the most part that the theories
have no real weight what-so-ever. Not to dwell on this topic, but I've always
been quite angry at the fact that people (everywhere) are all about remembering
9-11 so many years after the fact... but not even 3 years later after the
Oklahoma City bombing... the US forgot about the Murrow Federal building and all
the people and children that died there. It makes me sick.
Yes, many more people died on 9-11... for the OKC bombing/terrorist act, the
terrorists/conspirators were brought to justice... the OKC wasn't on TV for
everyone to watch like NY... but I want to say that the victims families (of
which I was related and had friends of the family who were injured and killed)
weren't compensated (no money at all nor much out of state condolences or
anything) like the ones from NY... financially nor by the public in general with
sympathy or anything like NY. Terrorism is terrorism... foreign or domestic,
right? People need to treat all things like that equally. (Just my angry
opinion... ) Anyways... that's my speil... I'm sorry to rant about that,
it just bothers me. .
I think one of the reasons why people still remember the
911 terrorist attack was because of the fact that this act was perpetrated by
radical Muslims from a foreign country. If it was a domestic attack, it wouldn't
be as big a deal especially for the media since it wouldn't mean going to war.
Another reason why I think it wasn't as covered by the media was because 911
occurred in New York, perhaps the largest city in the United States. And I'm
sorry that people you were friends with were injured. Fortunately, Timothy
McVeigh(spelled right?) was brought to justice. Unfortunately, he might not have
been the only one but as with several other significant historical events, there
surround many conspiracy theories over the event.
Nice Avatar BTW.
Whoops, wrong website. Humm... guess I wasn't thinking clearly this morning... I'll have to look for
the one I meant.
The one that I had but I guess I lost was a religious reich one...
Hello everyone. Sorry for not being around as often. My 2 new jobs keep me on my
toes, lol.
Quote by ProgramZERO
So, the sixth anniversary of 911 is coming up and I just watched this
interesting documentary on the History Channel of several conspiracy theories on
the terrorist attack. I personally subscribe to the belief that it was in fact a
terrorist attack and all these conspiracy theories are pure speculation without
satisfactory evidence. What are your thoughts here at
MT-Atheists?
I saw that too. Interesting if true, though... I believe for the most part that
the theories have no real weight what-so-ever. Not to dwell on this topic, but
I've always been quite angry at the fact that people (everywhere) are all about
remembering 9-11 so many years after the fact... but not even 3 years later
after the Oklahoma City bombing... the US forgot about the Murrow Federal
building and all the people and children that died there. It makes me sick.
Yes, many more people died on 9-11... for the OKC bombing/terrorist act, the
terrorists/conspirators were brought to justice... the OKC wasn't on TV for
everyone to watch like NY... but I want to say that the victims families (of
which I was related and had friends of the family who were injured and killed)
weren't compensated (no money at all nor much out of state condolences or
anything) like the ones from NY... financially nor by the public in general with
sympathy or anything like NY. Terrorism is terrorism... foreign or domestic,
right? People need to treat all things like that equally. (Just my angry
opinion... ) Anyways... that's my speil... I'm sorry to rant about that,
it just bothers me.
Quote by ProgramZEROSo, the sixth
anniversary of 911 is coming up and I just watched this interesting documentary
on the History Channel of several conspiracy theories on the terrorist attack. I
personally subscribe to the belief that it was in fact a terrorist attack and
all these conspiracy theories are pure speculation without satisfactory
evidence. What are your thoughts here at MT-Atheists?
I think I saw that documentary too. I don't believe the "conspiracy
theories" because, even if they are true, there isn't enough reason to
believe them from what I know.
On another note, Creationists have been making movies recently. Something that
seems to happen pretty often is Creationists trying to trick people into being
interviewed by them. The latest example of this is Creationists actually
tricking a theologian into an interview and editing out the parts that didn't
fit in with their crazy belief:
Quote: ...I have no sympathy
whatsoever with young-earth creationism (I'd sympathize with a young-earth
creationist who got bit by a pit bull or something, but you know what I mean); I
consider it exegetically irresponsible and it is (regardless of my consideration
one way or the other) not scientific in the least. The producers conveniently
left out the parts of my interview where I expressed the view that the biblical
Adam and Eve are "everyman" and "everywoman" and that the
impossible geography of Eden is a clue to readers not to try to interpret
Genesis 2-3 literally. Instead, the film gives air time to ICR folk who
completely misuse the real scientific concept of a Y-chromosome most recent
common ancestor (Y-mcra) and a mitochondrial DNA most recent common ancestor
(mt-mcra), sometimes called "Y-chromosome Adam" and "mtDNA
Eve"; the talking heads try to conflate Y-mcra and mt-mcra with a literal
Adam and Eve from Genesis 2-3, even though Y-mcra and mt-mcra, according to
current evidence, lived almost 90,000 years apart from one
another.
Well, I've certainly learned something. In Iran, acts of male and female homosexuality are illegal but changing your gender isn't. In fact, the government provides funding for gender-altering operations and hormone therapy for those who have undergone procedures. I would think Iranian attitude towards this practice would be to the contrary but that was incorrect.
As for Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University, on homosexuality, Ahmadinejad simply said that "there are no homosexuals in Iran" which caused laughter amongst the crowd. On the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad called for more research to be done on the event. This coming from someone who called the Holocaust a "fabricated legend" in 2005. Here's a transcript on these and other issues: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Waiting for Godot? *Looks up* Sounds good. I'll try to read it when I get the chance.
God will pay infinite money from being sued! :P Someone just got rich real fast, hehehe.
oh, i see......
but, i guess he could be suing those believers too, assuming they are supporters.
well, will god pay?
Yeah, ProgramZERO posted it, hehe.
sorry to interrupt, just want to ask, has anyone heard about a senator suing god?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/17/america/NA-ODD-US-Suing-God.php
Nope, not yet, well I haven't even heard of it yet, hehehe... and... in a sense of way... welcome back? :P
Well it's been a while since I've been on MT.
So has anyone here seen or read th play Waiting for Godot?
INFINITE! Thats just funny... :P
merged: 09-21-2007 ~ 01:21pm
You know, I'm going to use that article for my current event paper for US History, it'd be funny as hell.
I wonder how much money you could sue out of God? LOL!
Awesome...
'fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes.'...don't forget create human to suffer pain too...
Awesomeness.
Silly God, threatening to smite people and such for no apparent reason. When will he ever learn?
Just click this. It's quite amusing.
Well yes, we all know it should be but that isn't the point
Otherwise it would have already happened.
With advances in technology the ability for science to discover more about the world around will increase accordingly, if not exponentially. The ability for Christianity to explain more of itself essentially lies within interpretation of the bible.....there's not really any technological advance that will aid its development. Science teaches us something new everyday
You know, until there are experiments that seem to support ID or Creationism, it should be excluded from any publicly funded schools and such. No such experiments are available and, IMO, will never be available so...
Creationism specifically says it was a god who did it. It most often refers to Christianity, but there's also Islamic Creationism, for example, that the fundamentalist Muslims believe in. It's basically believing in the creation myth of one's religion. So, if (Christian) Creationism were correct, it would not only mean there was some intelligent designer. That designer would be the Christian god.
No, the idea was to make it secular, so it wouldn't violate the United States' (and other countries') separation of church and state. That way they could use public schools to propagate their religion. Of course, they still haven't overcome the fact that it isn't scientific, even if it's secular.
Hey, if we need songs having to do with religion, could "Tomorrow Never Knows" be replaced with "The God that Failed" by Metallica?
Here are the lyrics. They've to do with faith healing ("broken is the promise, betrayal the healing hand held back by the deepened nail") and cancer ("it feeds, it grows"):
Pride you took
pride you feel
pride that you felt when you would kneel
not the word
not the love
not what you thought from above
it feeds
it grows
it clouds all that you will know
deceit
deceive
decide just what you believe
I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail
follow the god that failed
find your peace
find your say
find the smooth road in your way
trust you gave
a child to save
left you cold and him in grave
it feeds
it grows
it clouds all that you will know
deceit
deceive
decide just what you believe
I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail
follow the god that failed
I see faith in your eyes
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail
follow the god that failed
pride you took
pride you feel
pride that you felt when you'd kneel
trust you gave
a child to save
left you cold and him in grave
I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by deepened nail
Follow the god that failed... ye-yeah!
Broken is the promise, betrayal, betrayal, Yeah
Yeah, I've found this is widely true as well; anti-evolutionists focus on the random aspect of evolution while completely ignoring natural selection--without which we wouldn't have evolution at all as we know it.
It's not science. Almost all scientists will tell you that.
Sorry to break the flow but many of you have probably seen http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/dover_trial_intelligent_design.php by now. If not, as always, give it a look. Anyways two very specific things occurred to me while watching that. Firstly it seems that the whole idea of irreducible complexity is the fact that they already have a direction. In that example they said something along the lines of you cannot create a moth by chance. They've completely ignored the fact that a moth was created by chance and seem to be following the idea that chance is the process used to create a moth. Chance could have just as easily led to a moth being 5 times larger than an elephant, if we never knew anything different would we argue it. There seems to be the notion that nature and random chance has wanted to create these specific things.
Secondly I found it humorous that even if creationism were correct, it only points to an intelligent designer. The theory could easily and correctly be used to prove the existence of aliens right? An intellectually superior and controlling race of beings who have intelligently created humans and our world, then planted the idea of god in our heads to cover up their own existence. It just as plausible as god.
merged: 09-14-2007 ~ 06:56pm
After watching the second half of those videos they also state what I said in the first part with the example of dealing the cards
P.S. So ah....what was the difference between creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent design doesn't specifically say god so it become science?
I think one of the reasons why people still remember the 911 terrorist attack was because of the fact that this act was perpetrated by radical Muslims from a foreign country. If it was a domestic attack, it wouldn't be as big a deal especially for the media since it wouldn't mean going to war. Another reason why I think it wasn't as covered by the media was because 911 occurred in New York, perhaps the largest city in the United States. And I'm sorry that people you were friends with were injured. Fortunately, Timothy McVeigh(spelled right?) was brought to justice. Unfortunately, he might not have been the only one but as with several other significant historical events, there surround many conspiracy theories over the event.
Nice Avatar BTW.
Whoops, wrong website.
Humm... guess I wasn't thinking clearly this morning... I'll have to look for
the one I meant. 
The one that I had but I guess I lost was a religious reich one...
Is there something wrong with this site..? Forgive me, I may just not be thinking this morning.
Hello everyone. Sorry for not being around as often. My 2 new jobs keep me on my toes, lol.
I saw that too. Interesting if true, though... I believe for the most part that the theories have no real weight what-so-ever. Not to dwell on this topic, but I've always been quite angry at the fact that people (everywhere) are all about remembering 9-11 so many years after the fact... but not even 3 years later after the Oklahoma City bombing... the US forgot about the Murrow Federal building and all the people and children that died there. It makes me sick.
Yes, many more people died on 9-11... for the OKC bombing/terrorist act, the terrorists/conspirators were brought to justice... the OKC wasn't on TV for everyone to watch like NY... but I want to say that the victims families (of which I was related and had friends of the family who were injured and killed) weren't compensated (no money at all nor much out of state condolences or anything) like the ones from NY... financially nor by the public in general with sympathy or anything like NY. Terrorism is terrorism... foreign or domestic, right? People need to treat all things like that equally. (Just my angry opinion...
) Anyways... that's my speil... I'm sorry to rant about that,
it just bothers me. 
On another topic:
... it just goes to show you that you can put anything on the
internet... just... a site...
I stumbled across this page...
I think I saw that documentary too. I don't believe the "conspiracy theories" because, even if they are true, there isn't enough reason to believe them from what I know.
On another note, Creationists have been making movies recently. Something that seems to happen pretty often is Creationists trying to trick people into being interviewed by them. The latest example of this is Creationists actually tricking a theologian into an interview and editing out the parts that didn't fit in with their crazy belief:
Source: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=744