dangerdan

I have always considered myself an atheist and believe absolutely in the theory of the big bang as the creation of the universe as well as the theory of evolution. However, I have recently began feeling that there are flaws with an atheistic viewpoint. I recently heard a quote (I can't remember who it was by and can't find it on the internet) that "The atheists biggest problem is knowing who to thank when things go well" and this got me thinking. I frequently use what I would consider idioms such as "Oh my god", "For Christ's sake" and simply "God" but to me they have no meaning. This lead me to issues such as free will, predetermination, fate, the infinite possibilities of the universe and human's pyschological prediposition to religion and ultimately left me with the feeling that atheism leaves me unfulfilled. However I really can not identify with any of the major religions and their concept of God, judgement and rules. I mean I accept basic societal rules and norms but don't want to starting living my life by the unprovable, apparent word of God. This leaves me with the conclusion that I need to forge my own personal religion or philosophy on the universe and how things work. I don't believe in any kind of afterlife either. So what I come up with will likely consist solely of science, plus some of kind of view of a greater sense of the universe.

Climate change has been said to be one of the worst cases of market failure in history. Governments must intervene an tax high polluting companies, but this doesn't mean that they will simply increase production, if anything, they will simply increase price and pass the tax onto the consumer. Therefore the emphasis comes to the consumer to choose products made in a more environmentally friendly way, because they have tax relief and are thus not as expensive. From the business point of view, if businesses are being taxed highly enough because of their high emissions then they are going to look at a way to change this, because ultimately capitalism is based on producing at the lowest price possible, and selling at the highest. Tax is, in my opinion, one of the only ways to offer an incentive both to consumers and producers that will actually make a difference. The planting of trees idea is a very nice one, in theory, but if you simply allow companies to pollute as much as they want, and simply balance it by planting trees, then THIS is when you will really see pollution and emission start to raise.

The science behind the greenhouse gas effect is indisputable. CFCs do damage the ozone layer, fact. What is up for debate is the extent to which any global changes in temperature or the increase of 'extreme' weather is down to the actions of mankind, as well as the extent to which mankind can reverse them.The earth has always gone through cyclical phases of temperature, for example, the warming period at the end of the first millennium and the mini ice age in the 14th century. A graph showing emissions rising exponential over the last 30 years is not sufficient to prove global warming, it proves nothing except that emissions are rising, which is obvious given the vast industrialisation and development of countries such as India, China and Brazil. I think the IPCC 'hockey stick' graph controversy says enough about the way in which the UN must distort that facts in order to gain the desired effect.

Yeah, I'd say it's illegal regardless of your intention to actually carry out the act. I view this as being similar to the European law regarding inciting racial hatred. You need only call for a "jihad" or "holocaust" (seriously, no offence to anyone through the use of these terms) to be said to be inciting racial hatred which is a crime in European. Saying you want to kill the President is probably as close as you can get to high treason in the USA so I'd say it's a definite no.On the other hand, common sense and practicality reign supreme and if it is apparent you are making these comments as a joke it will probably be ignored. If you're a known terrorist and you make similar claims, chances are you'll be arrested. I agree with most people here that the absolute key point is intent.

That is absolutely outrageous. Orwell was only too right, it would seem. The UK is increasingly become a police state based on surveillance and inciting fear. The argument that "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" simply does not wash and it is definitely an invasion of our personal liberties on mass. Ah, I can't wait to emigrate.

Wow, this thread is at the fore front of existential philosophy, with an undertone of globalisation and development. I genuinely don't think there is any particular reason that anyone is born anywhere. Circumstances are what you make of them. Did Nelson Mandela and Ghandi sit back and moan that they had not been born into all Western Consumer Capitalism had to offer? Of course not, but they set about changing the circumstances they were subjected to, and not just for themselves, but for all their countrymen too.We in the Western world realise that consumer capitalism is dependent on the exploitation of third world countries, and we are deeply saddened by this. However, we are more saddened when our new t-shirt costs double the price, because it wasn't made in a sweat shop. The West take for granted what the developing would savour and appreciate.Instead of complaining about the lucky circumstances you were born into, set about trying to change the circumstances, either directly through helping developing countries, or through the hearts and minds of those in the West.

I completely agree with Hail Caesar that Israel is one of the main things standing in the way of global governance. Without sounding hate fuelled or racist, I can see no way in which Israel can peacefully coexist with it's neighbouring Middle East countries - in particular Palestine and an Ahmadinejad ruled Iran.

Completely agree with the previous post. Children should definitely be given religious education from a young age. Ignorance of other religions only breeds fear. Religion has a lot of good morals and guidelines which I would think we all agree we want children to follow. The most obvious example is the ten commandments. They are a way of teaching children morality without even having to touch on the subject of legality and/or punishment. The deterrent becomes the morality associated with "not killing" or "not committing adultery".

Is that the "review" of the infamous viral video involving a cup? and a couple of ladies? (I use the term ladies liberally!)

Yeah the laws on gay marriage vary all across the world. Think it's legal in the Middle East? Absolutely no chance. I'm from the UK, it's legal here, and from what I've read it's illegal all across America (please correct me if I'm wrong!!) but I can't see the Bible Belt states ever legalising gay marriage. So the legality of gay marriage is inherently defined by where you are.

Good and Evil are definitely not inherently defined by what society view as morally acceptable. If this was the case, issues such as immigration, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality would simply not be viewed in the same way. The Americans are not the 'good' force and the Iraqis are not 'Evil'. This fallacy that the Americans, as "World Police", are spreading civilization and democracy throughout the Middle East is utterly indefensible. What right do the Americans have to force the governmental system democracy upon another country? What right have they to interfere in the affairs of the Middle East? In my opinion - none. America is laying the groundwork for bitter relations with the Middle East for a long time to come. Western intervention in the Middle East has gone on long enough, especially since the creation of Israel, and it should stop immediately. It is not simply the case that the American soldiers are hand-made by God to fight the infidels, and nor are the extremists (I hate the misleading word Jihadist) sent by Allah to kill the Western infidels. NEITHER OF THE SIDES IN A WAR CAN BE CONSIDERED GOOD. This is the crux of message I am trying to get across. No aggressive side (usually both) in a war could be considered good, and must surely be closed to evil. I am a pacifist and thus would never, ever condone the use of violence, on a micro or macro scale, to solve problems.

Why do people always assume that every single homosexual man in the world is also a child raping paedophile? It makes absolutely no sense. 99% OF GAY MEN HAVE NO SEXUAL DESIRES TOWARD CHILDREN WHAT SO EVER. There are hetrosexual paedophiles - guaranteed. Ultimately, someone decision to be gay does not affect your civil liberties or right to live your life how you want, so why infringe upon a homosexuals rights by saying their life style choice is wrong? The fact this is even a debate is, in my opinion, disgusting. People need to stop hating gays and bashing the bible, seriously, it's the 21st Century. Notice from truefusion: Quote tags are required for copied material.

Given the high number of deaths of British troops in the last few days many people are questioning whether the war in Afghanistan is one worth fighting. I certainly don't. We should pull all of our troops out of the Middle East and end British intervention in the area (I think the American's should too but hey). British troops are dying as a result of another war that shouldn't be happening. It's becoming increasingly clear that there will never be an end to the "war on terror" that Bush promised. I only hope Obama realises that and tries a more tactful route.

I'm English. Gordon Brown is an absolute muppet. He spent 10 years messing up the economy as Chancellor of the Exchequer only to succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister without even a leadership party within the Labour party, let alone the general election we deserve. Innumerate scandals, most damagingly the MP Expense Scandal, have shattered peoples confidence in the current government. From the joke of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, through the illegal war in Iraq and the global economic slowdown the Labour government have been a shambles.I would (and will) vote Lib Dem.

Firstly, msdeeva you say that This argument is self defeating and causally the other way round. Because marijuana is an illegal substance the US government can not control it. Were it legal, they would be more than capable of controlling production, sales and tax. Some estimates say the US government could generate as much as $1bn in tax revenue. Secondly, and before people start having a go I smoke marijuana most days, I really think there is this dichotomy between people genuinely researching the medical benefits marijuana may or may not have. On the other hand, you have people trying to justify smoking a joint based on the health benefits it could be said to have. There is no such thing as medical marijuana. Smoking a joint is NOT good for you.

Nobody here is worrying about swine flu. I know it is milder than normal flu and I'm also from the demogrpaphic least at risk.It is not worth worrying about as it is. The potential problem comes if H1N1 (swine flu) mutates with either seasonal flu or the H5N1 avian strain of flu. If this does happen, we could be left with a superflu which is immune to our vaccinations. If this doesn't happen, no problem.

The first response got the critical point. Political science is not a natural science, it is a social science. The social sciences are generally defined as Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Sociology and Social Anthropology. Political science is only a 'science' in the same sense that any of these are. Politics is clearly not in the same ballpark as Biology, Chemistry, Physics or Maths because it is significantly harder to 'prove' a political theory particularly given that Politics is a fluid entity potentially changed by every comment made upon it.Political science attempts to systematically study and analysis all elements of Politics. Just like Biology does with the natural environment etc...

The ability to record video was, in my opinion, an obviously missing feature from the original iphone. All apple are doing is adding the features that the iphone should have always had.

Something I've noticed about the USA (I'm from the UK) is television and in particular advertisments. In the UK, adverts try to be quirky or funny to get their brand image across. However, in the USA, advertisers use the most "in your face" uber-capitalist adverts aimed at throwing a price, a product and some flashing images so far down your throat you want to gag.

I would say this statement is fundamentally flawed because so many arguments and wars around the world are based on religious differences. Christians believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, whereas the Jews don't believe in him (they only believe the Old Testament). On the other hand, Islam claims that Jesus (known as Is? in the Quran) was a mere mortal prophet. However, the disparaging differences between how, for example, Islam and Christianity tell us we should lead lives is all too clear. Islamic law dictates every aspect of life, from what you can eat, to what you wear, to whether you earn interest on money. The only way in which I think the major religions could be said to be similar is in the way they control our lives and dictate our thoughts. As Karl Marx famously said "Religion is the opiate of the people."

I would define racism as a prejudgement of character based on race.Racism is a specific (probably most common) form of prejudice and in that sense the two could be used synonymously.

I assume this thread takes God existence as a given. Well say God is the guiding hand behind everything that happens on earth (I don't, for a second, believe it is) then any actions which brought the world to an end could be said to be God's doing.I think the most likely way the world will end, and thus God could be said to have destroyed it, is through WW3.WW3 is often stated as being between Allied Forces (the West) against what George Bush infamously defined as the axis of evil in Iran, Iraq and North Korea.Some say we will look back at 9/11 and cite it as the start of WW3. Campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan followed (and continue) and seriously increase Middle East tension.Iran's President Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map.North Korea withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and starts developing nuclear weapons....which they later test.The Taliban are gathering an increasing presence in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province and particularly in North Waziristan.USA forced to bomb Pakistan, again.Extrapolating this trend of events....The Arab-Israeli conflict goes nuclearNorth Korea bomb US soil (most likely Hawaii)China invades TaiwanCountries all over the world begin to take sides, China's sympathy with N Korea is possibly most worrying of all.WW3 will be synonymous with breaches of human rights, the Geneva convention and nuclear holocaust....possibly destroying the entire world!

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx andresf91 you say I think this is critically the point. Since Darwin's theory there has been a huge decline in the number of people practising religion...and despite fluctuations the level has never fluctuated anywhere near the level it was before Darwin's theory - where I would say 90% of the UK was religious (Christian specifically). Since Darwin this level of religious following has gone into chronic decline and has, and never will, return to a level where everyone believes religion. Too many people see science and religion as being directly juxtaposed and therefore I do not think religious beliefs will ever be the mainstream again. Off topic: andresf91 is your image in support of Israel or Palestine? It's a bit ambiguous to be honest. On the one hand it highlights the plight of the Palestinians, whilst on the other hand showing bombs being dropped on them....

In my opinion, right and wrong are inherently determined by a given society, at a given time. "Right" is what a consensus of society would agree to be 'right' regardless of whether it actually is or not. However, you can hit a problem when society comes up with the "wrong" answer - which is what any society against homosexuality would have done in my case. But you can't just force referendums upon a nation until they get the "right answer" - I'm thinking in particular of the Republic of Ireland and the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. So what if society and "morality" clash? There does seem to be a dichotomy between what society views as right, acceptable etc and what a philosopher could morally justify. The last 100 years has seen emancipation of women, ethnic minorities, the disabled....even animal rights have improved no end. And yet society still can't accept the idea of someone being gay? Are you all living with your heads in the sand of the desert region of the Bible Belt for crying out loud?! Anyone who objects to homosexuality from religious grounds is doing so from a fundamentally flawed point of view in my opinion. People who argue that it is "wrong" or "dirty" are frequently, in my opinion, scared of their own sexuality - be it gay or straight - and simply look for groups in society to scapegoat - akin to the way the Nazis scapegoated the Jews in my opinion. Here's an article discussing the "if you hate gays that much, you're probably one" theory http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

England suffered its first death from swine flu yesterday. I want this topic to be a discussion of whether this is a truly worrying, globalising pandemic or purely media hyped fantasy.By all accounts swine flu isn't even as mild as normal flu and yet the world media seem to be having a field day! I am only glad this is not a problem the media can "induce" by talking about, such as a recession, otherwise everyone would be dropping dead just because of the media coverage swine flu is being given.People need to stop worrying, especially in this country, where it IS only going to get worse as we approach the regular flu season anyway (Northern Hemisphere Winter or Oct-Jan roughly) especially as in badly affected areas (such as the Midlands, where I'm from) people are being told not to go to the doctors and they've stopped trying to control the disease from spreading.The point is this strain isn't that bad, but if mutates with seasonal or avian flu then we may well have a problem on our hands, at the moment though I don't think we do...