no9t9

The edmonton oilers will lose. they cannot win 3 in a row against carolina who has everything going for them. edmonton has a weak goalie (jussi markkinen) comparied to the carolina goalie (cam ward), next edmonton has a crappy power play, and last they can't score. None of them are shooting the puck. many times an edmonton player will go down the wing with speed and then stop and pass the puck instead of shooting.carolina has a great power play, a great penalty kill, and great goal tending. There is no way edmonton can overcome this. It will most likely be carolina in 6

God is a fictional character invented by man to fill a gap in their life. Without god, people had no direction and were to primitive to think. After such a long time, people seem to think they see god in everyday life. They attribute coincidence or irregularities in their life as the work of god. Why is this? because there are still people out there who NEED to have something that is greater than them. This is a sign of a weak spirit and a weak mind. These weak people need someone to tell them how to live their lives and to tell them what is right and what is wrong. God does not exist.

i think banning mobile phones in the car is absolutely ridiculous. mobile phones isn't the problem. the problem is stupid drivers. how hard is it to drive and talk on the phone at the same time?Besides, it has already been proven that it is not talking on the cell phone that causes the accident... it is the loss in concentration while talking on the phone that causes accidents. Now, if we ban mobile phones while driving but allow hands free phones, the problem is not solved! So how is this law going to help? Absolutely stupid law. If you are going to ban mobile phones, you have to ban everything that can cause a loss in concentration. No more coffee in the car, no more music, no radio... In fact, you aren't allowed to have passengers... what would the difference be if you are talking to a passanger compared to talking to that same passanger on the phone?While I'm at it, we should also ban small children because they cause major distractions in the car.So, how is the cell phone any worse? Why suddenly everyone is so worried about the cell phone?

vegetarians are more brainwashed than meat eaters. meat eaters don't go around shunning vegtables. Meat eaters eat both vegtables AND meat.In case you people didn't know, humans are built to eat both meat and vegtables. Which is why we are called OMNIVORES. We are not meant to eat JUST vegtables or just meat.The problem with people and society today is that everyone always takes things to EXTREMES. When people hear something is good for them, they will only eat that one thing. Or when they say something is bad, they will cut it out of their diet entirely. This is RETARDED.People are meant to eat BALANCED diets. Eat your veggies, meat, fruits, and grains.

Only when others are around is morality outside of harming God then necessary. Therefore, to test your theory you would need people growing up isolated without prior cultural experience rather then one person alone.

No. If you read more carefully, I was talking about how someone might develop morality if society, culture, religion did not exist. And by that I mean that this person can not be influenced by other "beings". You need someone who is totally isolated without any religous or cultural influence. Then throw that person into society to see if this person developed similar morality.

As an interesting point, how long did many of those sacrificing nations exist? Many are chronicled of being destroyed in the Bible's book of Judges, something many Christianity critics point to as cruelty. While the practice continues today in the form of abortion, it is interesting to note that nations using it have consistently met a terrible demise, while Israel whose holy scriptures emphatically deny it still has their nation, original land, culture, language, holy scriptures, and history.

I don't know the answer to the sacrficing nations. But, this is not the only example of murder in history in the name of religion. Just look at the crusades. In the name of religion, they murdered thousands of people. I think the original point I was trying to make is that murder being right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think those people responsible for the crusades thought what they were doing was wrong?

When you say before religion was invented, how do you determine that? The Bible says the first human's children sought to worship God, one by offering an animal, the other by offering produce. And of course Adam and Eve had a relationship with God before they messed it up. What do you then term as religion?

The bible doesn't prove anything in this case. Humans have been proven to have been on earth for around 40,000 years. At that time, people could not communicate (written or verbal). BUT, they did live in societal groups. Do you think they had morals? It is safe to assume they did because if you study ANY family group in nature, they all have some sort of rules. But, in this case... do these humans have "religion"? Do you think they even had a concept of god?

Ultimately, God's existence can not be dependent on our knowledge of Him. Just because I don't know you exist, doesn't mean you don't. Just because I don't hear the sound a tree makes in the forest doesn't mean a sound wasn't made (unless you define sound as something heard by someone).

Yes, just because YOU don't know me doesn't mean i don't exist. But, what if NOBODY knew you. Would you exist? You walked around town and everyone acts as if they could not even see you. You talk to people and they don't provide any response. What would you think? Wouldn't you start questioning your existence? You'd probably think you were dead or a ghost. It is ironic that you use the tree example because that is the very example that has been used to illustrate my very point. You use it to argue against my point. If no one is there to hear the tree how can it make a sound? Sound is simply vibration of molecules but if no one is there to interpret those vibrations, is it really a sound? If no one had ever thought about "God" would he exist?

As for societies without religion, they have most definitely been attempted. Lenin attempted to kill all following a religion. Both Russia and China have attempted to create religion-free countries. So then, what would you say their morals look like?

The problem with those "attempts" is that those societies were trying to SUPRESS religion. I am talking about societies where religion never existed. in other words, where people have no concept of religion. Like i said earlier, it is impossible to find such societies now or in history. The closest you can come is in the animal kingdom.

people in north america have been lucky that they pay much less for gas compared to most other countries. Offering tax breaks and other stuff for gas only makes the problem worse. If gas gets expensive enough, more people will take transit and find alternative fuels. Have you noticed how many huge SUVs have been produced in the last 10-15 years? most people driving SUVs have no intention of using it for its real purpose. People drive SUVs to work. Just moving their own body to work and not hauling anything. That is a huge waste of gas.

there's only one way to deal with a bully and that's to stand up to up so he doesn't bully you anymore. if it means fighting for what you believe in and getting your face smashed a few times before he gets tired of ya and picks on someone else, then so be it. you stood up to yourself. or you get YOUR friends to smash his face and he's think twice of bullying ya. yes, it worked on the playground.

And that right there is the american attitude that everyone in the world HATES. That is what causes many of the problems america is facing. And NO it doesn't work on the playground. You go around beating up everyone who bothers you? You know what happened in the playground? you beating the *BLEEP* out of a bully doesn't make him stop. he will just find different ways to get back at you. Also, I didn't really want to say it but, America is the bully... they have "smashed in people's face" so often that people are responding by "smashing in america's face". many people think america DESERVED 9/11 and these people aren't the terrorists. I hate to break it to you but America is the most hated country in the world, they are regarded as the world's bully. Even america's friends hate them now... ie. canada, britian, and other "friend" nations.

i am one that believes you have to protect yourself at all costs from little to big situations to ensure i don't get hurt anymore.
what i do believe is fighting back to an extreme and if that means soldiers die, then they die. you send the word out by force. you ensure they think twice before coming back to the u.s. to do what they did. unfortunately, you risk innocent lives when you do that. war is ugly. but at the same time, if you live in a country with known terrorists who constantly get their way through violence, you should get the heck outta that country or be subject to the consequences if others fight back against terrorism.

What you and your ilk don't understand is that you can protect yourself without "smashing someone's face in". Why do you believe fighting back "to an extreme" is necessary? With that attitude you are NO BETTER than the terrorist. Terrorists fight using extreme methods and you are willing to do the same. How do you expect terrorists to stop when you are taking this stance?

now i don't know much about terrorism because i haven't studied it.

that much is obvious. Do you know what happened in palestine and israel? Israel agreed to stop being the bad **bottom** bully and "shashing palastine's face in". The result was LESS violence... When Israel kept bull dozing palestine homes, guess what happened? MORE violence... go figure... Takeing a LESS extreme stance actually produces LESS violence... how would have thought?

now i voted for this man twice. not really the best man for the job but he acted the same way i would have after 9/11 even through out the coverups before and after 9/11. who is really able to run a country. its said you lose 10 years off your life when you try. it's not an easy job and you will never be able to please everyone. but i'll tell ya this....i believed in sending a word out. might have made people angry as it made the united states look like the bully, but we were the ones being attacked. it may have given us a reason to invade a couple countries, but so be it because not everything was on the up and up with them in the first place. these countries don't want to be blamed for what terrorists did so these terrorists will be getting heat not just from the u.s. but the other countries who lost because of 9/11.

Yes, that's the problem with americans (yes... not ALL americans, just those who agree with bush)... they have such extreme attitudes that many would (and do) consider them extremists.

And Yes... who gives a *BLEEP* about all those innocent people who are dead because the US needs to get the word out. Let the world know that the US means business... If we don't like you, we will kick your **bottom**.

Next, you think the US is the only one who has suffered from terrorist attacks? The US has hardly ever been hit by terrorism. Have you heard of the IRA? They have been bombing england for a long time. And guess what? England stopped trying to bully the IRA and violence DECREASED!! Second, because the US just had to get the word out, this has had a cascading effect on the REST OF THE WORLD. The US is not the only country in the world and their actions are not isolated to their own country. Actions by the US affect the ENTIRE WORLD. That attitude makes me sick. You make the world a CRAPPY place. You just show that you don't give a *BLEEP* about the rest of the world... And that is exactly why those terrorists HATE you.

And "so be it"?? Ya let's attack those countries cause they weren't on the "up and up" anyway. Who are you to judge? Do you understand that the rest of the world does not see things the same way as you do?

my friggin' RIGHTS were LOST after 9/11. anyone who has been to an airport after that date knows what i'm talking about. but i would rather lose rights than be unprotected when i fly. if we did nothing, then it would have been open season on the united states who would be known for doing nothing. screw that!

You think all those changes makes flying any safer than it was? All those "changes" were to ease the fears of the masses. It was bush saying "look! I did something". Any real security analyst will tell you, all that stuff they did doesn't help. Terrorists don't need planes to blow stuff up. I hate to break it to you, terrorists are already living in the US. Have you heard of sleepers? There are tons of places where they could kill tons of people. I know someone who went to the lincoln monument in washington and there were thousands of people with NO security.

You know what has changed after 9/11? nothing. What's changed is that americans are living in fear and they grasp at anything to ease their fears. If I were al queda, i would laugh myself to sleep everynight.
"Look at these morons, taping their homes up to prevent biological weapons from killing them... oops, i guess they forgot that they need air to live too... stupid americans!"

In summary...
Your attitude and your actions only make terrorism WORSE. Do you think you can SCARE them into stopping what they are doing? They kill themselves just to hurt you. I doubt you can scare them. And, do you think you can kill all of them? Well, you can't. It is impossible. How many years has it been since 9/11? They can't even catch bin laden let alone kill all terrorists... lol... how do you kill an idea? If you can tell me how to kill an idea, then I agree that you should go to war and kill all those terrorists.

Already posted here. http://forums.xisto.com/topic/8611-the-xenosaga-story-in-a-very-big-nushell-spoilers/=

I think word for word.

The problem isn't with Bush. The problem is with the people who voted him into office. I can understand voting him in the first time but after his record over the first 4 years of his term, you would think there is no freaking way he would get in again.Well, Americans voted for him again... That just shows that the majority of american people are stupid or the majority of american voters are stupid.Whether or not Bush cheated to get into office the first time around, doesn't really matter anymore. The fact of the matter is, he was voted in the second time with a much bigger margin than the first time. Chances are he didn't cheat the second time.The main reason why people voted for Bush is because of terrorism. They felt scared and thought he was the best guy to deal with it. Well, what americans didn't know is that waging war against terrorists doesn't work. Any retard knows that. Let's go beat up a guy who is causing trouble. Did that ever work on the school playground? No. You beat up the bully he comes back wtih a friend and beats you up more than before. You think it works any different with terrorism? The "war on terror" is not making america safer. It is making america a BIGGER target. They hate america even more. So how has the war on terror helped? Really, I dare someone to name 3 benefits to americans from attacking iraq. In fact, I don't think there are any benefits at all.

[1]I understand, but if i were to continue, we'd be back where we started from.
[2]Very well, then lets talk about rape. What if someone were to get raped, and the rapist considered it as a "one-night stand". Same can go for premarital sex. I'm sure society, or should i say, the law wont find it to be good.

[3]As for someone not going to jail cause of premarital sex, step back to [2]. As for society evolving, lets call it "bad design".

[4]Are you telling me that there isnt a possibility of pregnancy through one-night stands and premarital sex?

[5]I have not placed any words in your mouth. For these words are not from your mouth. They are not the work of your mouth, but your hands.

[6]Government, since it reflects upon society, and "manages" society. Yes, i am aware that things were made to be "politically correct".

[7]Yes, i understand, but majority usually overcomes minority.

[8]I was told by a scientist, who told you it wasnt?
Well, i wouldnt say 5% have died, but a whole lot more. Ever heard of car crashes resulting in death?
The human body is not the one resisting those speeds. It's the car that's preventing such speeds from affecting the human body.

[9]Well, i'd be surprised if someone happened to have a pen and paper at the time of any event.

[10]I managed to make sense of your words. My interpretation: Lets say, five years past by. Then you decided to write about the events that happened during those five years. How much would you be able to write about?

See, so much simpler, and understandable. Now, i can move on and agree.

This is pointless. You don't seem to understand the concept of morality. Next, you don't seem to be able to understand basic concepts of cause and effect. For example, a person who dies in a car crash dies because of the act of crashing not because of the act of going fast. Also, rape is not a one night stand. They are two seperate things. How can you use rape as an arguement?

I really don't think you are capable of continuing this arguement.

I'm sure you don't agree but I don't care. I am not bothering to respond to your posts.

[1] You don't seem to understand the concept of opinion and relative points of view. I WAS "portraying" that murder COULD be right depending on the person. Certain Nazi's and KKK members have no qualms about killing a black guy or a jew. Now, that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why would you assume I agreed with that? You say yourself I was trying to "portray" it. Since, you recognized that, why is it misleading? Just because I think murder is wrong doesn't mean I can't see that someone else thinks it can be right. How hard is that to understand?

[2] First, the MORALITY of one night stands has nothing to do with the morality of sex with a married person. Next, your point about STDs STILL doesn't have any bearing on the MORALITY of one night stands. Come back with some real arguements that are related to the topic.

[3] The laws of God? Do you think the laws of God will hold up in court? I hate to tell you this, but nobody is going to jail for premarital sex. I am not forgetting anything. Yes, many of "man's" laws come from religion. I've said it over and over, today's society has evolved FROM religion. Take religion out of the equation. You will see different laws. ie. no jail for promiscuity. My whole point is that right and wrong is a point of view that is defined by religion and society. Premarital sex is a contradiction between those two because the POINT OF VIEW is different. Please try to understand that your religion is only right to people who BELIEVE it is right.

[4] How does telling me it is easier for women to marry if they are not single parents proof that pre-marital sex and one night stands are MORALY wrong? That is absolutely ridiculous. There is no link between the two in terms of MORALITY. Now you are saying being a single parent is bad or that women all want to marry. Why do you assume that it is "bad" if women are not married or are single parents? There you go imposing YOUR opinion of right and wrong again.

[5] Then you should not put words in my mouth.

[6] Again with the examples out of nowhere. How can you say Lincoln would clean up today's corrupt system? What system are you talking about? government? or society? And yes, religion was used to make decisions "back then". And guess why it was removed? Because NOT ALL PEOPLE believe what you believe.

[7] I am not arguing if bribes are right or wrong. I am arguing that it is right to some and also wrong to some. You say yourself that "many" people see it as wrong but how can you ignore those who see it as right? The "system" you say should be morally on the "right" side is created by society. The "system" is created by people who have their own preconceptions of right and wrong. Besides, YOUR system is NOT the same as someone else's "system". Do you understand that the world is different depending on where you are?

[8] Where did you learn that science is only ever at a maximum of 95% right? Because you were told wrong. In my example, people thought the human body could not withstand a speed of 100km/h. Clearly this is a speed that many people travel at everyday. How can it be 95% right? Are you saying that 5% of people actually die because they have travelled at 100km/h? And your "along for the ride" comment is totally outrageous. If you are in a car moving at 100km/h, so are you. Do you think you are not moving?

You still haven't proven to me that murder is morally wrong. Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean it is proven. That only proves that I think murder is wrong, not that it is MORALLY wrong. To prove that it is morally wrong, your proof must be agreeable to EVERYONE and there cannot be interpretation.

[9] I don't even know what you are talking about. I am guessing that you are trying to talk about BIAS. That is not an arguement because no matter when something is written, there is always BIAS. In order to do a comparison, you have to hold certain variables as constant (ie. you have to assume that the same BIAS exists now and then). I am talking about changing ONE thing and that is TIME not BIAS. Writing it at the time means you have all the "witnesses" to get information. Writing it later means you have to get it from memory or through "witnesses" of "witnesses".

[10] If you can't grasp a simple concept like this one... I really am sorry... for you. It's no wonder you cannot understand what I am trying to say and can't put together a sensible arguement. Based on this, I really don't want to continue... though... the hosting credits are nice...

[1]The way you portraid everything made it seem like you would allow such a thing, which was a bit misleading to me. I understand the point, but everyone agrees with others' opinions or points of view. Just like you've proven it has.[2]Many people lie about their marital status. This is where "one-night stands" can go wrong. Lest, you think having sex with a married person isnt wrong.
Premarital sex (yes, i'm assuming again) is usually without protection. After all, you're gonna be spending most of your life with this other person. This is where STDs come in.
[3]You are forgetting, that even in society, there are people like us. We have the laws of God, you have the laws of man. Most of the laws came from the laws of God. Then, people started becoming "politically correct". Mostly, just cause they wanted the people to vote for them.
[4]
Taken from: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
Here's another one for ya: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
[5]This topic was originaly to discuss Christianity. I'd rather put words in front of your eyes, than in your mouth.
[6]Back then, politics was FOR religion. If Abraham Lincoln was alive today, he see just how corrupt the system has become, and he would change it for the better.
[7]In [1] you put yourself in the argument, but here in [7] you leave yourself out, again. Also, many people would agree, besides these business owners, that bribes is cheating the system. The system which is supposed to be morally on the right side.
[8]First of all, science does not have 100% certainty of anything. The highest is 95%. And when relating to the car, you mention that humans cant go that fast, which is proven by the car. The car is the thing that is going at such speeds, not the human. The human is only along for the ride. Also, you're forgetting science and religion does mix.

As for how to prove that murder is wrong, well i'll just quote you:

Lest, you contradict yourself.
[9]Simple, cause the person that is reading these things wasnt there at the time it was written. Meaning their sources is just from one being. Meaning that it could have been written the way someone else wanted it written. Many of the books of the Bible has many witnesses during the time it was written. Of course they're all dead, but the same can be said for other history books. That is why i said, it can go either way.
[10]This,
Sounds differently, to me, than

But, i noticed
Now, i'm confused again. Lol

As for being accurate, it would depend on how well the person can store information in his/her head.
There's a saying, "write it down on your hand if you dont trust your head."
[11]Well, i do try to keep the humor in things, to try and keep things in a neutral level. But, that was not the case. I was trying to prove a point using your own words.

[1]I find it funny that if something from a "point of view" were to happen to you, you'd consider it wrong, EVEN IF the other person thinks it's right. If someone killed your love one, based on your explaination, "Oh, wells..", right? If someone ripped off your arm, and found it to be good, "Oh, wells..", right? You'd just be in pain for a very long time, and no longer have an arm for the rest of your life, but as long as the other person found it to be good, "Oh, wells..".

 

[2]Yes, lets forget about the STDs. After all, they're not life-threatening.

[3]Missing the obvious?: We, apparently do.

[4]Because, many many reasons support it, and no not cause it's someone's opinion. Facts.

[5]You seemed to be brainwashed yourself. And it isnt just the Christians who think it's wrong.

[6]I can understand why you're taking into account about today's society. But, back then it was not as bad as it is today.

[7]Good! (cept for asia and south america)

[8]Maybe not you, but many others have.

[9]Many factors come into play, each weighing to either side.

[10]I'm a bit confused at this one. Cause if you kept a journal, it would be so things wont be lost or distorted.

[11]Thinking about things being an opinion, or someone's "point of view" "is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it".

 

[1] Of course I think murder is wrong. Did I say I was a Nazi or KKK? At no point in time did I say I have NOT been taught (or brainwashed) morality. But, I have enough sense to know that what I consider right doesn't necessarily mean it is right to everyone. That is the point. IF you don't get it, I can't help you.

[2] STD's? What does that have to do with premarital sex and one night stands? You automatically assume that premarital sex and one night stands means the frequency of sex and the number of sex partners is a lot? We are not talking about the physical consequences of it anyway. We are talking about MORALITY. Try staying with me and not going on to make assumptions about other things.

[3] Again, who cares if religion says premarital sex is wrong? Just because YOUR religion says it is wrong doesn't make it wrong. What about gay marriages? Many religions don't approve of gays yet the LAW in many places say it is ok. Again, WHO CARES what religion says? Just because YOU (or some others of your faith) care, it doesn't mean a thing to ME and those who don't believe the same thing as you. People have a CHOICE to accept what your religion says but we don't have to follow it. BUT, if you live as part of society you have NO choice but to accept what society says is right or wrong. You can't FORCE people or even JUDGE people based on your own religious beliefs. But you CAN judge people based on SOCIETAL beliefs (because it is LAW).

[4] What reasons and "facts" do you have to support your belief that premarital sex and one night stands are morally wrong? Give me some FACTS. I'd like to see how you can come up with facts to prove a moral issue.

[5] I never said it was just christians who think it is wrong. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

See [1] regarding me being brainwashed.

[6] Back then? You just proved my point. Religion DOES NOT accurately reflect TODAY's society. Besides, if you think "back then" people were NOT promiscuous, you are SERIOUSLY deluded.

[7] Yes. Good for North America. But you missed the point. YOU think it is good but not everyone does. So which is right? and which is wrong? The answer is: BOTH are right depending on the point of view.

[8] You think "many others" can understand more about a religion over time? What a joke. To "understand" a religion is to have your own INTERPRETATION. Religion is all about interpretation. When I say "understand", you have to take that into CONTEXT with the other stuff I wrote. The point of what I wrote is that one cannot understand religion the way one can understand science. If you study science more, you will come to hard facts. If you study religion more, you will just come up with more/different interpretations of the same thing which is not universal. You might say that even in science you have different interpretations, but as we improve technology, we answer many of the "interpretation" that we had. Take for example, cars. It was widely believed that 100km per hour was a speed that could not be reached and if a human went that fast, they could not take the speed. This is obviously wrong and has been proven. Now, the morality that religion tries to teach can NEVER be proven because morality is ABSTRACT.

How can you PROVE murder is wrong?

[9] What factors come into play? How can you tell me that a historic record is more accurate when it is written hundreds of years later "depending on certain factors". That just doesn't make sense.

[10] How can you be confused? Are you THAT narrow minded that you can't think just SLIGHTLY out of the box? Let me break it down. You keep a journal. Next, don't make the assumption that you write in it everyday. Let's say you write in the journal every 5 years for every day that passed in the last 5 years. Do you think it would be accurate?

[11] Are you trying to be funny? Cause it wasn't.

 

====================================================================

 

You raise an interesting point concerning the origin and validity of common morality. Have you ever studied natural law? It's a philosophical term basically referring to the study of how there are basic essentials to human beings and their civilizations worldwide regardless of culture, location, nationality, language, etc... For example, we all hold common beliefs that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, there should be sanctions on marriage, etc... In other words, murder being wrong isn't just something we're taught, but something inherent within our very natures! Paul speaks of this in Romans 1:19 when he says that God has clearly put that which needs to be known of Him in creation and even in our very natures! Within us is what is needed to realize that God exists.

 

However, let me show you where an "all is relative" view must inevitably lead. You are dead right, morality cannot exist by humans alone or human concensus. It must originate from God to exist at all. Otherwise all indeed is relative as you suggest, for then morality is dependent on us, and we will change it to suit our whims that we may appear justified before others. But if so, and God does not exist to have instituted a moral Law to the universe then morality does not exist. And if morality does not exist, then as you pointed out, how can we consider murder wrong? If all is relative why should we place inherent worth or value on other people? You can say we should do it for the good of society. And I know there's that stupid (and I do think it so) theory that if we act in our own self-interests we will serve society. However, if there is no morality and no ultimate purpose to our existence, we are reduced to the level of merely advanced computers with faulty programming in that we value others so that we let foolish emotion hinder our chances of survival in some circumstances. If we are merely globs of protoplasm, "dancing DNA" as Richard Dawkins of Oxford would say, then all is indeed relative and what reason is there to value other people? Why should we act on the behalf of others when we can for ourselves? Why act for the good of society rather then our own good if there's no meaning to it anyway? To deny the existence of God is to deny morality, to say all is relative, and to say that genocide, rape, murder, theft, and basically all-out chaos should be permissible and expected in our society. However, the Bible says God instituted governments to prevent that very thing. You do bring up a highly interesting topic however.

 

Yes, I know that there are certain "morals" that naturally develop. But think about the natural development if you did not live in a societal group. If you were alone and isolated from other people, how would your morality develop? My point was that morality is developed from society. And yes, naturally, society considers murder wrong because murder disrupts society. All "rules" in society evolve naturally to make society function. BUT, there have been some societies that had human sacrifices. Technically that is murder. But, it was not considered wrong. So there are always exceptions.

 

To your second point, morality can be seen to "originate from God" because religion was used as a moral compass for so long. Before religion was even invented, morality already existed. I've already talked about it a bit above. I cannot say that morality does not or does originate from God because we don't know if God exists or not. And since religion (I would rather say religion than God because not all religions have a single God), was such a big part of human development over the ages, it undoubtedly helped shape morality today. Consider though a planet or society with NO religion. Do you not think that morals would still develop? You point to the theory of natural law... which is what I am trying to say. Society doesn't neccessarily NEED religion to give it morality.

 

If you study how lions interact in their social group, you will see that they have their own set of morals. Now, I am not a lion expert or anything but I don't think lions even have a concept of God (or religion). Do lions have a concept of the after life, sin, and do they ask "why are we here"? I don't think so (but I could be wrong). Despite not having religion, a pride of lions will have thier own set of "morals" in the way they interact with others in the pride. On a side note... some might argue that this is the reason why animals are animals, because we have God and they don't. God lifted us above animals... Though, would God even exist unless humans were able to think about him?

 

In the end, morality as it exists today is a mix of today's society and past religious beliefs. There is no possible way to seperate them unless someone could go back in time. To say that morality would not exist if there were no religion (or God) is premature. There is evidence that morality can exist without religion (in the case of animal societal groups). I just think that morals will be different depending on how the society develops. And the development of a society INCLUDES religion in the case of modern societies. I am not arguing that. I just wanted to raise a point about morals IF a society developed WITHOUT religion. What would those morals look like?

 

=====================================================================

 

I am not over the place because i used quotes. Also what you said is what i meant. I thought i made that clear...

And i was using muder as an example. Murder is considered wrong now but can be good in the future.

I think religion is an opinion. What you believe in, is opinion. What is in that religion is fact. You have to either follow, not follow.

I tried to understand your points but they seemed to be in contradiction. I replied as how I saw your point.

So when you say "What is in that religion is fact... follow or not follow"... do you mean that if your opinion is in line with that religion (you follow it), it becomes fact to YOU? If this is what you are saying I agree. For those that follow their religion, it is definately fact for them. But for other people, those people that follow a particular religion are looking at ONE point of view.

 

 

That is my point. That society can not be solid while religion is. Society is always changing its views. And even YOU are displaying the typical views of society. Which is sometimes sterotyped. You say that i have been brainwashed into thinking. Well i can also say you are brainwashed into thinking it is good.

I am not sure what stereotypical views I am displaying but it doesn't matter. I never claimed to be pure (not brainwashed). It is not possible. If you grow up in a society you will have some "opinion" on what is right and wrong. The only way you can be "pure" is if you grow up in isolation. Why do you think children are regarded as more "pure" than adults? It is because they don't have as many preconceptions of society. They are more "free". Children don't care if they stare at someone because they think that person is weird looking. Adults don't do that (or will look when they think the guy doesn't know). Society said doing that is wrong and adults teach their kids not to do that. How many times have you seen an adult tell a child to be quiet? Why should a child be quiet? There is no real right or wrong in being loud... except that society says it is wrong in certain places and certain times.

 

Actually all history books are written hundreds of years later/decades later. The sources may be primary sources but history does not study 'today'. For example no historian is truly/offically studing 9/11 even though they may be studying it in their free time. And once again you are displaying society's typical views. It is often commonly believed that science is true and religion is a load of nonsence. Well when you say that the religion's Holy Books are just history books you should be clear you are only talking about the Bible. All other scriptures are completely different. I do not want to compare religion to science because that would require a new thread.

LOL. The process by which something becomes "history" is the passage of time. EVERYTHING is history! What do you consider history? You mentioned 9/11 and no historian will study it but would study it in their "free time"... Let's get rid of the titles like historian. Do you agree that 9/11 is being and has been documented? When do you consider that history? Until decades later when they rename the documents to "the history of 9/11"? The documentation is completed "today" not as it becomes "history".

 

Next, why should I exclude the Bible or other Books from what I might consider a history book (or story book)? And I don't want to go into the same stupid religion vs science either, but someone brought it up as a parallel to understanding the Bible (or some other book).

 

=====================================================================

It is not always a point of view. Would you say murder or perhaps even rape is wrong? Becuase if you did then you would contradicting your argument. There such a thing as right and wrong but not always.

 

Ah, but society can be corrupt. For example in the united kingdowm many people think it is harmless to have a one night stand or have sex with someone before marriage. But suggest this to a true strict Christian and they will be horrified. Now i cannot say that sex before marriage because the western society as a whole does not think it is bad. Murder is bad but that may become good. It is impossible to tell someone to judge themselves by society when the society is doing exactly what their religion is saying NOT to do.

 

I don't really want to get into a arguement on religion (and I don't really know what you are talking about because you are all over the place). I just find it extremely funny that you cannot see that religion is an OPINION and a POINT OF VIEW. You think murder is wrong because you have been taught that it is wrong. Murder happens all the time and depending on the person's point of view, it can be right or wrong. Just ask the Nazi's or the KKK. You think they cared if they killed a black guy? I don't think so.

 

Next, you mention that society can be corrupt and is why society cannot determine morals (or right and wrong). What do you think corrupt means? Corruption is just another viewpoint. If society thinks it is okay to have one night stands, why should it be wrong? In fact, I don't think it is wrong at all. Who cares if religion says it is wrong? Why should it be? Because you have all been taught (or brainwashed) to think that premarital sex is wrong. Who cares if a true strict christian thinks it is wrong to have one night stands? They do not represent society's values in this case so the christian is the one who is wrong.

 

Another example of "corruption" is bribes. In North America and most of western europe, it is unacceptable to take bribes in business. but in many countries in asia and south america, it is expected and even worked into the budget.

 

The second thing I find extremely funny is the fact that someone is comparing religion to science in terms of "accuracy". Of course the more we learn from a scientific point of view, the more accurate it is. How can the parallel be drawn for religion? It is simply ridiculous! Religion is not something we will understand more over time because it is abstract! The reason why the oldest book is the most accurate book is that all books are essentially telling a story (history - if you believe it is true). What is more accurate, a history book written AT THE TIME history happened or hundreds of years later?

 

If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago, how much would you remember? Most of your ideas would be lost and distorted!

 

Open your mind. Everything in this world is relative and depends on your point of view. You are taking a hard view from the religious point of view. Step back from your teachings (brainwashing) and try to see thing from other's point of view. Religion is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it.

the problem with the world is that pretty much every religion thinks they are the "true" religion. This is shown from the original poster thinking that christianity could be the superior religion.In fact, many religions are ALL Abrahamic religions. The only problem is that they all believe the "other" religion's books are not the "true" book. Muslims think the Quran is the true while christians think the bible is the true book.If anything, the bible (or the Quran) is the wrong book because christianity is one of the youngest religions. I would assume if there were a god out there, the oldest book would be the most accurate. If there were a "true" book, the "true" book would likely be the oldest one where there have been less "interpretation" and loss.Some books that are hundreds of years older than the bible or the Quran are the Tanakh (Judaism), the Vedas (Hinduism), and the Taotejing (Taoism).On top of that, there are religious texts that are not even used anymore because those religions are long gone. The question of who was "right" really is a non question. In reality, everyone was "right" because being right is a point of view. Ultimately, religion is an opinion on how one should live their life. If people viewed religion in this way rather than saying my religion is the one true religion, there would be less religious conflict.Religion is a guide for people to live their lives and defines what is morally right and morally wrong. For example, the bible says that you can only marry one person (you cannot divorce) but mormons are allowed to have as many wives as they want. Clearly this is different. What is considered wrong in one person's eyes is perfectly acceptable in another.The thing with religion is that it has not been updated for modern times; they probably worked a little better earlier on (but probably not much better). In today's world, religion should be changed. Not in what it preaches but HOW it preaches. There are some good values to learn from religion but it should be a spiritual guide rather than a moral guide.Morality should be defined by society not by religion. The reason is simply because religion is not uniform. Not everyone belongs to the same religion. Back in the day, most people WERE in the same religion because there was not as much globalization going on. Society on the other hand includes everyone. Of course, this is impossible because everyone already has preconceptions and prejudices based on their upbringing and their religious beliefs.

this was a fun game but was pretty hard. The controls weren't that great and timing was kinda difficult. The sheild on the gun was an important part of the game but didn't always work for me... Anyway, I will definately check out this game.

grades don't really mean anything...i think grades are one of the dumbest ways to measure success in education.

how do you know this guy isn't going to make money? what if he is the one who created the site/program? he would be sitting on top of the pyramid and get all the cash.basically people who join this crap is stupid. if you are going to participate in illegal pyramid schemes, you might as well be the guy on top. why waste your time at the bottom.

I am like 99% sure it is a harddrive issue. It sounds like the hard drive is about to fail. You will need to goto another computer and download a disk scanner that runs on the command prompt and a boot disk for the command prompt. The easiest one would be to download win98 boot disk and scandisk from win98.run the scan disk to check for surface errors. i am willing to bet your harddrive will have a lot of bad sectors.if not. reinstall windows. no way around it.

There are plenty of hardcore Mac users out there. Macs are better for graphics stuff, like image editing, movie editing, and stuff like that. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a graphics tip on The Screen Savers (on TechTV) demonstrated on a Mac.

this is true, there are many hard core mac users... these people are exactly like the hardcore linux users... in terms of attitude (not computer knowledge). Now, when I say they are hardcore mac users, it is not the actual mac computer that they love, it is the mac operating sytem and the programs that come with it.

So, the news that mac osx can run on a pc will be big news because all these hard core mac users can essentially buy a "mac" by purchasing a PC and installing osx on it. From the user perspective, it is a mac because they just care about the operating system and the programs running on it.

if you break it down, the new intel macs are basically PCs. the differences between the new macs and the PC is probably minimal. In fact, the differences are probably put into the mac computer on purpose by apple, just so that apple can say that it is not a pc. This "difference" put in the mac computer on purpose is a "security" chip on the computer that doesn't allow windows to be installed on the system. Also, osx will look for this to be installed (hence, prevent osx from being installed on a pc).

there is a group of people trying to get osx to work on a pc. they apparently have about 80% functionality. I think the website was http://www.osx86.org/

Turn off your alarm!!!the other thing is, usually if you are not abruptly woken from a dream, you will not remember it. so consider that if your alarm did not wake you, you would have forgotten your awsome dream.

I can't believe how many people here are listing a pentium or windows system as their first computer. Pentiums can still run modern programs and windows isn't that far back!When I think old computers, I think about those that had laughable specs... My first computer was the TI-99 (texas instrument). 16kb ram, 3.3mhz. 16kb video. I paid more compared to the timex the OP had mentioned.after that, i got VIC 20 and a Commodore 64. The C64 was a revolution in computing. It had 64kb ram! many games were made for it on cartridge and on disk/tape. I had the tape drive, couldn't afford the disk drive. It literally took minutes to load a program or game.

anymore invites for msn 8? plz pm me.thanks

Your reward in Heaven depends on how many good deeds you did. Your punishment in hell depends on how many bad deeds you did. If Heaven and hell are both in the same place, that would mean i could walk to hell, from Heaven. That would mean, I'm sending myself to be punished. And if some spirit would get free from the clutches of hell, they would run to Heaven. As you can see, this would be cheating the afterlife.

I don't think you understand. It is all about perspective. What is heaven to one person may be hell to another. You have to open your mind so you get past your heaven/hell paradigm. If you are in "hell" (which is on earth), let's say you are depressed and have nothing... You have a bad life. Now, how can you "walk over to heaven"? The only way to do that is to change your life. To change your life, you must do good deeds and work hard to improve yourself. If you can do this, you deserve to be in heaven. And since you DID do this, you WILL be in heaven because now your life has changed. Hence, the "reincarnation" to a "new" life.

Now, "walking to hell" and "sending yourself to be punished". If you have a good life and are happy, it can be said you are in "heaven". You decide to kill someone... your bad deed will be punished... by jail, guilt, etc. You will have lost your "place" in heaven and will have now "walked" to hell.

IBM/Lenovos are one of the best built laptops out there. NOT the R series or the cheapo series. Look for the Z series or the X series which is a solid computer. BTW, why would you need a company to support win98? There is tons of support online.

The real question is not "can we run windows on a MAC"... Who really cares because, like someone already said, why pay for a mac and run windows on it?The real question is, can we now run OSX on a PC without any emulation since OSX is now written for Intel processors. This is the REAL implication of putting intel chips in a mac. If mac can run windows and pc can run osx, then the implication is that MAc is nothing more than a pc.There are already "hackers" that are working on getting OSX to run on a pc.