kobra500

It's a name, its irrelivent, so as they don't don't look like mice is about as good a reason to change the name as changing your name from Ginger because you died your hair brown.

Here are some points that you can have fun pondering about:

I had a quick ponder

* Is the atheistic viewpoint truly exempt from the burden of proof (like many atheists like to believe)?

Well it wouldn't be exempt if it proclaimed to be more than just a word to label someone who "does not believe in God", atheism is not a faith, it's not a way of life, it says nothing of anything, it doesn't assume to be any more than a description. the burden of proof cannot lie with the one disagree with you, it relies with the one making the claim, otherwise if that wern't true, all sorts of claims could be said to be true because you can't disprove them, Russel's teapot arguements etc. Since there is no proof that God exists, you could say the bible, but the only thing the bible is evidence is for is for what people thought, and what people use to think is not evidence for anything because people used to think all kinds of things which are known to be untrue. which leads nicely on to

What is "evidence"?

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Less broadly on scientific evidence

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis

Scientific evidence is emperical based on observations, and must usually be recreatable, otherwise it could have been misrepresented. There are other things that count as evidence.

* What is "not enough evidence" or "lack of evidence"?

Well rather than speak broadly, in the case of God, or more specific to Christianity, not enough evidence, doesn't come into it because of Christianities complete lack of evidence, however, evidence must fulfil the burden of proof before you can say there is sufficient evidence, as you approach that mark however, it can be said that this is likely.

* What is a "conscious"? What is a "thought"?

Conscious can be said to mean "aware". Humans are said to be conscious as we are aware of ourselves and our surroundings, it allows for rational thought.
as for thought, strictly speaking thought is an electric impulse in the brain or something to that effect, based on an observation that we have made.

Yeah, I got mine recently, I love it! it took me ages, but I made it to the 500 mark, I was stuck on 400 for such a long time, and this post showed me where it was so thanks for that.

There is a program called "wordpress MU" stands for multi user, and that is the same program as wordpress.com uses, with that not only could you manage multiple blogs, more than that you could set it up to make each new one under a subdomain. but you can do it normally, you are obviously doing something wrong, screenshot what you were doing , maybe the install screen. we can take a look. Otherwise, manual installs are easy, and take 10 minites it might be worth not depending on softalicious.

I don't use it anyway however, I disagree that microsoft should not be allowed to bundle them together, it's their product what they do with it is there problem, OSX give you safari, most linux distro's come with firefox, so you can't complain. Forcing an update to IE 6 would be good though, because the recent IE is quite good, though I preger firefox, and even that has problems.

Now this isn't a long rant about America, I am not that arrogant, nor am I prone to classyfying people in one group as being the same, instead I am going to briefly speak about something which a large majority of people in America seem to feel.You only need to look back in History to Vietnam to see how petrified the USA was of Communism, as if it was going to takehold, we're now approaching 2010 and has anything changed. To alot of people in politics, and people in general, Social reforms and socialism = Communism, this is not the case, it is a sad day when someones political beliefs that are in no way (Rasist or based on Nazi, Ideals, and other extremely negative things) are used as such an insult, communism is a dirty word, brought on I think through the telling of history, or implanted in the minds of children. The scary thing is, people with little healthcare, maybe no job and dirty clothes, living in the dirtyest trailer in the roughest parts, associate socialism with communism and therefore hate everything socialist, without realising socialism is there for them, this includes the disabled. Now socialism does not reward lazyness but what it does do is make sure people get a minimum standard of living which include healthcare.ah yes you've zoomed in on the point of this topic, healthcare to those that need it, I am constantly shocked that the idea of a corperation being in charge of your health doesn't scare you more than the idea of rights for everyone, the corperations don't care about you, they want your money, and if you don't have insurance, you can't pay then they'll toss you on the street and leave you there. The government is/should be owned by the people, and therefore must care about you. Obama has wisely decided to take an unpopular action for change, wether you personally agree or not the hostility the idea has recieved has been shocking, the NHS has been used to show a negative however, wait times are now down to an acceptable lengh of time and everyone has healthcare, america's system see to it that millions of people don't get the help they need. Scrubs showed it best, the dr's sneaking patients without insurance on, is that a good system, I don't think so. So please, social welfare reforms are not synonomous with communism, Robin hood isn't going to come steal all your money, tax may go up but it's going to need to go up regardless what with the economic climate. Please discuss.

Now education and spiritualism mentioned in the same sentence usually is not a popular combination for me, I got my hopes in the first line, until "unfortuantly" reared it's ugly head

The terrible mistake people make is based on the modern, supposedly scientific error that values consist of mere systems of belief, and have no objective validity. The education of children is generally considered forbidden grounds for giving such advice. Thus, formal education has become a matter of training the intellects of children; of preparing them for later employment; of stuffing their heads with facts and more facts -- without suggesting to them what they might do with those facts, once they've learned them. Schooling, therefore, becomes an education in meaninglessness and in life's essential purposelessness: indeed, an education in atheism.

right, well while I will agree that education teaches facts without suggesting what to do with them passing an exam we hit the

meaninglessness and in life's essential purposelessness: indeed, an education in atheism

For one thing, you suggest that athiesm teaches that life is meaningless, few if any athiest, believe life is meaningless or else we wouldn't bother, there doesn't have to have a meaning set by a dictator, you are free to find your own meaning. I don't believe in life meaningless, I am a happy, stressless person who enjoys my life, I find meaning when I speak to a friend or play a game, the meaning of life to me is to live in a way which benifits you without causing excessive strain on someone else. Prehaps the thing you are worried about is that not teaching children your religion, not teaching them any religion means they will end up without a religion. But you see, it only shows the weakness of your place, Children who are taught the facts and are asked to make there own minds without the bias of someone else being thrust apon them, hardly ever will turn to religion, and why should they, Religious studies teaches about all religions but moreso teaches to think for yourself, objectively, Religion and objective thinking are hardly compatible, if you are brought up religious you work your faith around science, or you distort science around your faith, but if you know the facts you will distrust the distortions and distrust the religion that has been altered to suit what we know.

Everyone in the world wants basically only two things: to avoid pain, and to find happiness. This truth traces back to what adi Swami Shankara taught: that God is Satchidananda: ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new Bliss. All beings are motivated by the need to achieve -- if not bliss, then at least lasting happiness.

Athiesm isn't a belief favoured by people who slit their wrists and wear black, it is a mixed bag like anything else, but you don't need god to be happy, all you need to do is do those things that make you happy within reason, there is no use wasting your life because you don't know if there will be eternal happyness after. Stick to what you know, that you have this life and that you can be happy for the remainder of it.

The last line I think represents what everyone collectively believes that you need to know right from wrong, have certain values in order for society to function and for people to be happy, the difference being is that you will say it requires a god, where as I say, that these exist without god.

Don't worry about saying hello again, I have currently made 3 posts in that particular forum, all the times I've gone and come back. anyway hope your here to say, I don't remember you so either you joined that long ago, or were only here during a spell that I wasn't regardless, welcome back, you'll know the rules, no need to tell you. good luck.

On the old system it was possible to send credits to other members as competition prizes or in exchange for good and services, ETC. the new system is missing a way of sending mycents to people, the reason I say this Is I'm terrible at art, graphics photoshop, that big group, and I reckon others are inept at something that someone on the forum isn't. I'm sure people want to run competitions, like in the old days. So my question is, is a transfer system a planned feature for the future, is it possible? It is surely plausable. Are you even considering the idea, has this been mentioned already and I just havn't looked.

Hello Siner, I hope you will enjoy your stay here, and pick up some freebies as well. It's good to have another coder, better than having someone who can barely code or use photoshop or anything helpful like that, and instead spends all his time debating, though I'm not mentioning any names (Kobra500). But in all seriousness, just add something that wasn't here before and you've already started on the right track.

part of me hopes it doesn't come back (the one with different options), a particular user took the time to go through and disagree with every post I made, all because of what I believe in (or don't) by all means debate with me, but I would never be so petty as to try to undermine someone by dirty tricks, thats the problem on youtube, False DMCA's and Flagging, votebotting.

Welcome Alex, I always knew you'd make it , have a drink from me, hell have 2, your paying for them.

What I don't understand is while people would buy/sell sauce thats not in a squeasy bottle, when the latter is far superior.

Well a lot of the information about it is Misinformation, how ever the sum of it is not as misinforming as what you just said, anyone who is interested in Global warming which deals with information, misinformation and speculation should watch this video series on youtube.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

But it certainly is not a scam, there certainly is evidence for it. Also in the Case of the Y2K bug they were unsure of what would happen, although what they predicted really was not such.

Now ignoring all the Religion in it, it makes an aweful lot of sense, however, it doesn't state how to overcome tempation, merely states the obvious. But I agree, why do we fight temptation, because that tempation has a negitive effect on ourself. Gluttony is a good example, especially if what you are eating is very unhealthy, gluttony depending on the context is often selfish, I've had problems with Gluttony for years, it is annoying to try not eating, I nearly went and made a sandwhich at 12:30 and I'm not even hungry so it is annoying problem, and there are lots of other tempations apart from Gluttony, of course sometimes you let yourself fall to your tempations depending on what it is, in moderation.Also the Bible Quote need to go in Quote marks.

When you get past the fact, its very unlikely the soul exists, and therefore, very unlikely heavan exists and then If you've read the Qu'ran or any religious book It does not give the impression that God of all the rewards he would give you, would give you Virgins, I would be inclined to severely doubt that anyone including the Muslim extremests are going to go to heaven, much less get Virgins, the whole concept is disgusting and Ammoral (which is a characteture of God himself), which should not be something a god would go for being a 'moral being', then again if any of the books are true then God is a hippocrit so who knows what he would do.But anyway Virgins is a mistransation I believe, or at least that what I heard anyway so don't take my word for it. Do you honestly think the will get this? Think about it.

Whatever he did, this made it to stumbleupon, That or I have no Idea how I got to this link.

But you really need to clone from puppies, there was the incident with dolly the sheep where her DNA was the same age as her parent. Which wouldn't be good. Though that is cool, I know some people are against cloning for moral and religious reasons, but since Religion has no part in secular society, and the majority of people have no problem with cloning provided the clones do not suffer. I think this is a good Idea, as long as they don't clone race horses.

Well the mutations themselves etc. are indeed random, with every Generation at least a portion of your dna will be different from that of people in general, of course that information won't stay unless it was an improvement, we're at this stage in humanity now where normal evolution (natural selection) is being replaced by social evolution, people who just would not have survived even a few hundred years ago are surviving, instead the success of you is more based on you as a person, and you're individual personality and prehaps looks, rather than wether or not you hunt and kill.

Also @ anyone who is prehaps a creationist if I can use that word, I'd advice you watch this playlist, though If you don't want to watch them all, start around 9,10 and 11.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

It deal with misinformation that deniers of Evolution may believe, or use as well as detailing how evolution works in detail. It's not a rant against Creationism instead it is an explanation of the assertion they make to denounce evolution. Also don't link me to Hovind's videos, i've already seen them. The guy uses straw mans every sentence and more lies and misinformation than a convicted fraudster. Makes sense though because he is one.

Okay he might rant a little but hey, its an explanation.

Right there are an awful lot of posts but I havn't read them yet, this is purely aimed at truefusion, your description of a lot of what darwin said was very good in general, and I thought correctly about de-evolution, however I would just consider that evolution, in which much of what evolution did to finches was crossed out by change in environment making them more suited to what they were, however they are not the same breed of finch as before they would be slightly different as I doubt there is a case of something evolving backwards perfectly, although evolution is not random due to natural selection it certainly isn't perfect and thus I don't see a reason why something could de-evolve, instead it would simply evolve due to natural selection into a breed of finch which happens to be very simular to its predessessor.

Everything I write now is since I have read other posts.

Bux, I'm afraid your comment was more pointless than my question, claiming that evolution is a fairy tale and that so is God/Jesus. and that we cannot know so why ask. and I find myself asking the question, why did you post this? If you do not care wether evolution is true or not and are more concerned with your opinion on the process and what I can only assume from the point of jesus, you don't believe intelligent design either, your place in this conversation is pointless as you don't have a point. Wether or not I like/want to believe something does not make it true. Simply saying we cannot know is not the right answer, I reckon people have said we will never cure cancer, we can't kill cancer. and now we have the means to at least stop mild cases and research is getting better. We are on the brink of finding a cure for HIV and even then we can control it so that sufferers can have fruitful lives.

Nothing is to be gained by not trying to gain a better understanding and we have lots to gain by doing so, if you don't want to, then fine that is your choice, but doesn't mean the rest of us will stop trying.

And yes, humans are ignorant and will always be.

You prooved your own point, you are ignorant on the subject of evolution, some of the other things you said proove that. Don't get me wrong Its okay to be ignorant, so long as you don't use your ignorance to persuade people, like "Dr" Hovind who is in prison for fraud. and I myself am ignorant at many things, but I admit that to myself.

Lastly, I will get some evidence for you Truefusion, it will likely be in the form of videos because I enjoy watching and listening more than reading, but thats just me, I like a good audio book you see... etc. I know I took the offensive and I wasn't having a go at you, but you see you critisise me for asking questions and attempting to better my understanding, and also my own curiousity, and I don't like that. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but your point adds nothing to the debate and codemns the idea of the debate at all, of course if people did not want to debate the point then they wouldn't.

Hey, I would appreciate it if you explained what you want in more detail, define what you mean by mantainance on the subject of Evolution. "De-evolution" to my knowledge does not exist, explain what you mean by something de-evolving surely de-evolution is just evolution. It is rather I have misunderstood you point or your point really makes little sense, but if you explain what you mean I will be able to answer you.But heres what I've got, you want me to show you evidence of a specific example of a creature that has evolved into another, due to it becoming more suited to its situation/environment whatever. and it also cannot of "de-evolved" due to "lack of mantainance" Its that last bit I really need you to clarify what you mean. also Baniboy or anyone else if you know better what he means feel free to clarify it for me. Cheers.

Well I already have some stuff in the works about Evolution, so maybe we can work together on that bit. Apart from that, science is something I'm interested in greatly so I will be happy to join in the discussion. Also no. 6 ties in nicely with no. 5Your not seriously a believer in the arguement from morals Truefusion, if you havn't found something yet which shows where then you certainly haven't looked, infact it is one of the worst arguements for God out there. It is sooooo easy to refute compared with a lot of arguements for God if you know a little about Evolution, and more about social advancement, and contrary to your point, I have yet to see one use that arguement in a way which is impossible or difficult to refute.If your intested I can link you to tons of videos, blog posts etc, each one will show how moral can exist without God, and yes they may include bits about subjective morals and will include more. and again the reason they include the bits about subjective morals is because they are true, again I will always say that the fact Morals can exist without God does not disproove God or even the fact he made morals, but they make it so he isn't needed and therefore make God superfluous.

Right, I know several people on this forum are Christian, fewer still disbelieve in evolution and prehaps the same if not less people are Literalists of the bible, I.E. believe that is 100% truth, a minority in there own religion I might add (talking of Christianity more generally, specifically Catholism and Lutherianism/Protestism). Even more specifically than that, here is my question.What would you accept as evidence for evolution?Now before I start, I never suggest and if you read the post on the subject before that to believe evolution to be true is synonomous with athiesm, when especially outside of the United States (Within Christianity creationism is a bit of an American thing) Christians who believe in Jesus and God accept evolution to be true under the weight of the exteme amount of evidence, when even the pope would accept evolution to be true, why do you not accept the same evidence. So that begs the question of what would you accept evidence. (I'm saying that God if he exists could have created the world etc, and made it so that there was all the means for life an rather worked with the process or let in run its course) note: Evolution is nothing to do with Atheism, Atheists do almost always believe in Evolution but so do most other theists. Evolution does not explain where the universe, the earth came from, it PURELY explains lifes diversity. and lastly, do you believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution and if so, why.For each response I plan on finding the evidence you are looking for, unless you are being unreasonable (Crociduck), I will likely provide a video made by someone with a much better understanding than I do, and I will admit If I was unable to find evidence, and if so I will try to find why there is no evidence, prehaps you are looking for evidence that cannot exist, i.e. you have failed to understand what evolution is and are asking for something that doesn't even come into it, and therefore its existance could not be proof of evolution.I look forward to peoples answers, especially truefusion.as an after Thought if anyone says they would not accept any evidence as evidence then they are being willfully ignorant and are a waste of everybodies time, and trying to convert others using willful ignorance inclusing indoctrination of children to your idea should be punishable by law, indotrination of any kind should not be used because people deserve a choice which you deny them, I wouldn't indoctrinate my children into Atheism, I would allow them to make there own minds up. If you don't understand or don't want to, don't try to drag everyone down to the same place as you because that is immoral, I don't even think God (if he exists) could disagree with me there.

Ah I watched a great video on the subject, the fact remains that you have a choice what to do in any situation, but think about it, don't you think that choice is fixed, based on circumstance, in the same circumstances, you would always make the same choice, this means that the events leading up to the choice were to happen again after you had say amnesia about the first time, I don't think you would move logically to a different choice, the choice you make is rooted in logic, and the way you thing, coupled with events and circumstances in your life, but these are fixed in time providing that a time machine is never invented, lf course if one was invented in the future, the events that have taken place would have already taken that into consideration. Free will just means that you get to choose what you do, but due to the way our minds work the choices we make are often thought about more, but it really isn't that different from how animals decide what to do, its similar to instinct, but you are more involved in the process. of course if you were to go back you may choose differently but no one gets that chance, do we. I suppose the choices we make are rooted alot, similar to animals in the way we evolved, being quite social creatures in nature means we will choose to work together much of the time, due to the foods that were not readily avaliable we choose chocolate over vegetables, the part where free will comes in is we may choose vegetables because they are better for us, but before being fully cognitive we would not. So I suppose you could say that is evidence of free will, when you choose Carrots over chocolate.

Often when you install/reinstall a operating system, so I guess this counts as upgrading, sound drivers and video drivers are by far the worst when It comes to needing an update, when I had to do it to my olllld laptop it was a nightmare trying to find them, but yeah, if you have vista it should be easy, it is not microsofts fault, you get that problem with all operating systems, when I installed linux I had a simular problem. Hopes this helps.