truefusion

You forgot to mention that the ability to adapt or adopt to different environments implies free will. Anyway, your statement seems to be assuming that the person will always be met with one choice at a time in life and that perhaps denying any choices is futile.

This has been touched on in other topics but never truly addressed. Then again, as you noticed, there is no explicit explanation in the Bible on why undesirable birth effects did not occur or weren't mentioned at all, therefore making it practically impossible to provide an absolute answer. However, theories can still be provided concerning this event. The theories will of course take from both our experiences in this world and what is obvious concerning about this Biblical event. There are many ways to explain this, though, and i might mention certain unofficial theories without getting into them completely. For starters, if Adam and Eve were the first humans, it is obvious that incest would have had to occur between their children. From our observations today, it can be seen that the majority of people are born healthy enough, that is, without any noticeable birth defects. From these two we can conclude that at least Adam and Eve's children's children (yeah, you can't assume that Adam and Eve's children bore birth defects due to inbreeding) did not bare any noticeable birth defects (at least from what is generally understood as a "birth defect"). Adam and Eve lived to be over 800 years old, so we can expect them to have a lot of children; i'd say at least 25; 50 or more if they took God's command about multiplying (Genesis 1:28) seriously. What would follow, of course, would be their children having children. The theories will basically start from here. We'll start with the fact that there are different colors of skin today. We can use Michael Jackson as an example on how it could have come about; that is, loss and gain of pigment over time. The sun could have had a lot to do with this. Another possibility could be that either Adam or Eve was created with really dark skin (why should we assume that both were of one specific skin color?). I can't think of any other reasons for differing skin color, so we'll move onto the next "dilemma"—birth defects caused by incest. For one, the error is often on the reader's side that inbreeding necessitates birth defects. While inbreeding does increase the chances of birth defects, birth defects do not always occur. Therefore, while some of Adam and Eve's children's children may have had birth defects, as the family tree grows and grows, and due to the now vast array of children, the possibility of birth defects are reduced (greatly). In fact, many states allow you to marry your first cousin.Link Any other reasons why the reader would have trouble accepting this part of Scripture would be due to any feelings or (")morals(") the reader has. In which case it would not be the Scriptures' fault. Therefore, i think i have addressed everything that was brought up. If you have any other questions concerning this, reply to this post.

That's incorrect; as mentioned before, they have the right to legally marry the opposite gender in whichever state they choose. This is no different than the marital rights that heterosexuals have, which is why the fight for "equal rights" is deceiving. You seem to be limiting marriage in its entirety with marrying the same sex.

Which means they have the same rights as heterosexuals, as heterosexuals aren't capable of gaining marital benefits if they were never married too. Which leads me to my other point: homosexuals aren't looking for equal rights, they're looking for more rights—the right to marry the same gender. They guise this desire under the mask of "equal rights." They have the right to marry the opposite gender, but they don't want to exercise it (obviously), then comes the fight for equal rights. None of these facts cause the homosexuals to lose rights, but apparently they're good at emotional rhetorics.

Homosexuals already have the same marital rights as heterosexuals. Therefore it is pointless to seek to give them the rights they already have. Remember, not wanting to use a right is not the same as not having that right—this is something the homosexual community have trouble realizing. These two sentences are mutually exclusive. One states it is in his nature, the other states it was merely nurturing.

Unless you run Cent OS within an emulator, you cannot use it within your desktop environment, since a desktop environment requires an operating system. Cent OS, based on the screen shots i saw, is not hard to install. Just following the on-screen instructions or wizard.

Actually, many open-source licenses, like the GPL, allow the developers to charge for the source code. Unless their choice in license prevents them from charging for the source code, then it is up to the developers whether to charge for the source code or not. The main reason on why most if not all choose to make it without charge could be because licenses like the GPL allows those who would purchase the source code to release the source code afterwards without charge, therefore kind of making it pointless to charge for the source code in the first place.

Unless you're going to go for a degree in Computer Science, then i wouldn't recommend it. PHP is easy to learn, due to how well written the PHP manual is (probably the best written document for any scripting language). If you're not planning on seeking a career that deals with PHP, then the PHP manual is all that you would need. But if you're looking to get serious with PHP, then go for a degree in Computer Science or at least study up on it too.

The PHP manual has these image processing modules available: http://us2.php.net/manual/en/refs.utilspec.image.php Out of all of them, i've only used the GD library, and it was just to generate thumbnails for a gallery script of mine.

So there's no such thing as open channels in the United Kingdom? Or did i perceive this wrong? I don't see the point of having such a system unless there's no such thing as open channels. I've ran into similar with other companies.

If the directory is empty (and since you say it is chmodded to 0777), then make the following PHP file and run it: <?php rmdir('path/to/directory'); ?> The reason why you are still seeing the file after refreshing the file manager page could be because the JavaScript (assuming you're using the new file manager and not the legacy) was made to remove the element regardless of whether or not the file was removed from the server.

If you read what you said, then you'll see that you've basically answered your own questions (regardless of them being rhetorical). But in case you don't see it (as you seem to have missed it the first time around), if we follow from "your" belief that anything damaging or harmful is immoral, you can easily conclude that their "survival tactics" are immoral, as they are obviously harmful to their prey. How you respond to your first question is by stating whatever comes after it. But morality deals with what is good or bad. But to say something about your second question: Why does anything that causes harm or calamity or undesirable consequences necessitate immorality? Homosexuals converting to heterosexuals later on in their lives does not always involve Christianity (though it does tend to require something big). Many people take counseling, even to figure out whether they're gay or not. If a person is confused or if they were confused about their sexual orientation in some point in time, then they were obviously not born gay. But even if it were the case with the priests example you gave, though it may not be absolute, it would still be illogical to deny all cases, due to ignorance. There is nothing wrong with being born gay, sure, but that doesn't mean your position on what morality is is absolute. Just because something is damaging does not mean that it necessitates immorality. Your statement implies limiting morality to the physical self, but harm can go beyond that. And assuming a "moral standard" without first justifying it is fallacious, as it is basically special pleading. Therefore any statements following it are fallacious. And undesirable consequences doesn't deny morality, especially if the one receiving harm is receiving harm because they first caused harm. Real morality cannot come from a being who has equal authority as any other being. For if real morality came from the human self, then morality would be merely a guessing game, where people make things up as they go. How can imaginative thoughts be real morality (when your thoughts are equal to everyone else's thoughts)? Indeed, in such a world there is no such thing as real morality. Thankfully, no one can (logically) show that such a world exists.

It's not safe to assume that some people are born gay. Even if you were to argue "animals do it too," that doesn't show that these animals were born gay (even though such a statement implies that we should be getting our morality by imitating animals). The fact that people can stop being gay later in life implies that it may not be a biological thing. The statement "they're born gay" is often taken as a given, though really no evidence is ever provided (at least from what i've seen). Not even an article. Even when i try searching for one, i get something else (often times people refuting the possibility of being born gay). So your premise that "some people are born gay" holds no weight (until proof can be provided).

Using the same logic, you can say you do not exist, since "you" is merely a word used to describe (or reference) something. Of course, this does not need to be limited to the word "you"—pick any other object and the same logic would apply to it. Those questions don't show that morality is relative, for you'd basically be arguing like rob86 has. Also, you've made a statement in a way that makes it sound absolute. Unless the logic behind it is absolute, then the statement is false or flawed. To say that nothing can define absolute morals is to willingly exclude other considerations. Only subjective morality is relative, and nothing without absolute authority can define absolute morals, for the absolute authority can have you submit to the morals regardless of whether or not you want to; likewise can the absolute authority give you the ability to act on your own (while bearing consequences for your actions)—though they may later have you punished for your evils. If there are no absolute morals, then there is no way to judge whether or not an action (and their consequences) is good or bad. Therefore going through the list is futile. However, your statement leaves open for subjective morals, which allows for everything else mentioned in this quote to follow. However, arguing from subjective morals is futile too, since you say there are no absolute morals. For what makes your subjective morals better than the other person's subjective morals? What if they disagree with you? If there are no absolute morals, then no conclusion can be made; no absolute standard can be used. In a court of law, you could use the laws of the country you're in; but these laws would not be absolute since you can avoid them by leaving the country, therefore avoiding any unfavorable consequences. But in the case of an absolute authority, it would be up to that authority to allow you to get away with any evil you may have committed regardless of your location. This doesn't follow from your previous statements; it contradicts what you previously said. That is, you said there's no such thing as absolute morality, then here you say that what you previously said is the real morality. And the ending question, if we were to assume that there's no such thing as morals would mean that neither you or Rob would be evil or at fault (i.e. at least socially). Indeed, by making statements like "there's no such thing as morals" makes arguing on whether or not someone is at fault or bears social responsibility irrelevant.

I'm a bit bored, so i'll respond to a few things (and leave the rest to Kansuke if he wants). Out of those three examples, you only reference one. Perhaps it wasn't safe of me to assume that you wouldn't forget about North, South, East and West. I doubt with much study anyone can provide the date of Jesus's birth. They could provide a range, but never the exact day, month and year. In the one (or more) of the Gospels, Jesus warns about false messiahs. While, technically, no human can perform miracles, in the book of Acts and others, people have been known to perform signs. Signs aren't necessarily miracles, but they still give off an impression of divine power. Maybe because they were too busy writing about reincarnation? (Similar concept, but different in its own way.) I have in the past pointed out to you a prophecy whose fulfillment can be observed today, but, though i waited for it, i never got a response back from you (so i stopped waiting for one). I think the topic it was posted in was when we were joking about flying spaghetti monsters and how to make a living off of them (but i can't remember). If you're going to use words that are defined in the Bible (i.e. "murder" and "jealousy"), then you could at least assume the definitions from the Bible (as that would be more reasonable). In which case you'll find that an omniscient being cannot be convicted of murder and that godly jealousy is different from human jealousy. That's not wishful thinking on his side, since he didn't assume it to be true from hope. By not colliding with it? But i noticed something about this statement (read my response to the next quote). Turns out you're confusing interpretations with Scripture (though the first example is ambiguous) and statements made that are independent of Scripture.

Logically, you haven't shown (proven) this to be true. That is, merely stating that there are differing minds out there doesn't prove that there is no such thing as (objective or absolute) good and evil. But to answer the question in the topic title, only an absolute authority can define good and evil.

With my personal websites (and my scripts) i use the "graceful degradation" path. I don't pick this choice because i'm ignorant of other design methods, but because i choose not to be limited with my designs. If i can do it with the current technology, then i'll do it, even if some browsers don't have the support yet. Normally the only browser that doesn't have support for the things i do is Internet Explorer (but of course). However, Opera still doesn't have any way of displaying box-radius (though i hope they at least implement an -o-border-radius or something soon). But if i were to get paid for the things i make or work on, then i'd consider "progressive enhancement." Plus, using new technologies helps me learn new things; basically you are future-proofing yourself. I always make sure my site works without JavaScript even if it uses AJAX to load and replace the main content of the site. That normally involves separating the script that grabs the content from the template system and have the template system include the content script. I don't really consider browsers like Internet Explorer 5, and in perhaps a couple of years i won't be considering Internet Explorer 6, so building two sites, in my case at least, would be unnecessary.

Microsoft, interestingly enough, has a free ebook available for download at https://www.visualstudio.com/vs/visual-studio-express/ Just pick the chapters you want to download on the left panel. That's a bit different. In that case, you should consider getting into PHP. It's not a language you compile to machine code, but it has a similar syntax to that of C++ and the PHP manual goes through practically everything about PHP. You could use the knowledge you gain from PHP to learn C++. And to develop programs for Windows, you'd may want to consider Microsoft Visual C++ Express, as it should bring its own compiler.

They're supposed to. But from what i'm hearing, Barack Obama's way of dealing with a financial problem (or crisis) is to throw money at the problem. I know we've been borrowing from China and probably other countries, but that's even more foolish than taking the money from our own pockets. I doubt we'll continue getting help from other countries, as we're bound to take them down with us. The whole point of having a stable economy is to have the money circulating within our country and close off any exit points, to be independent, otherwise we'll just keep losing money.

Right, what i said doesn't mean that. In those cases any DRM would have already been broken, and unless the creators themselves were giving away the torrents, it would be illegal to bear ownership of those forms of media if you do not already own that form of media. From what i hear you are entitled to a back-up of your data though you are not allowed to give away that back-up. My statement, though, was mostly directed to computer programs. Ripping is a different context than cracking.

In an attempt to figure out a better algorithm for my content management system, i did research on strings and arrays and came across an interesting little website. If you read this page and the one following after it, you should find it interesting (even if the information may be slightly old). But if you have similar benchmarking tools, you should be able to obtain the information you're looking for.

I don't pay taxes because i don't have a job. Where i live it is not easy to get a job, especially now-a-days. From this position, and worse, it can be tempting to believe in what they say, but i know that would be appeal to emotion. I do not believe in what the government told us about 9/11, since some people actually argued points better than the government has and since the government made statements that were non-sequitur and fallacious. But i don't believe in the new world order since those that assert that there is a plan to start a new world order have made statements that are either non-sequitur, ambiguous, appeal to probability, or too emotional. As mentioned before, you cannot conclude a new world order from the video i referenced, for the premises don't add up to a new world order. The fact that there is a lot of emotion surrounding this makes it easier to attract and gain numbers but also increase the chances of fallacies sprouting up. I'm used to appeal to emotion and have little trouble pointing it out when i see it, since it is a very common fallacy committed by the "new" atheism movement (you can even observe it here in the forums from other atheists). Does it require the involvement of money or government or emotion or the possibility of a new world order to realize that the world is corrupt? It's been written in the Bible for thousands of years, and now there's a fuss about it? Anyone who has done research on fallacies, logic and philosophy can tell you that just because people are corrupt does not mean that a new world order is inevitable. That's appeal to probability, and the emotion surrounding this makes people not realize the premises. If you actually took the time to determine what the premises are and write them down so that they are explicit and then write down the conclusion, you would find that at least one premises is flawed. Conclusions are dependent on all the premises provided in the argument; if one of the premises is flawed, then the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If i were in control, world domination would not be on my agenda. You can be in control without being corrupt. Doesn't matter if there are statements out there like "absolute power corrupts absolutely;" power does not necessitate corruption. It is not power or money that is the driving force behind any corrupt act, it is the love or desire for things—doesn't matter what; could be as simple as the want for certain shoes or a bike. The thing i find most ironic behind this whole new world order conspiracy is that it asserts that the government is trying to control the masses by any means necessary while getting the masses that are hearing this from seeing that these conspiracy theorists themselves are trying to control the masses. If you are worried about people controlling the masses, then you'd consider both sides. Why do you justify one mass controller while condemn the supposed mass controller? Because you feel the one you support has proven their case. If you want, you can take the time to write down all the premises the videos you have watched state, and we can go through them all to see if they lead to a new world order. I would not expect you to be unwilling to do so, especially since you seem to be so into this. You asked for our opinion on the matter, but how about taking it further by seeing if these videos or arguments actually lead to a new world order? People degrade themselves everyday regardless of how many warnings you throw at them. Even if you convince everyone of a new world order, degradation will still follow. Even if you can gain all the rights back that we have lost, they'll be lost again. Humans, in general at least, can't live with absolute freedom. That's the thing about the concept of liberation, it sounds nice, but will never succeed in practice. The fact that it sounds nice makes it more acceptable, therefore allows for a raise in numbers in support. Anyway, the offer still stands, if you don't mind disclosing the premises of their argument. Rhetorics generally, if not always, deal with emotion, especially within this context; they never prove anything. If you want, you can help out sonesay with pointing out the premises.

Concerning the legislation (or judicial) system, if i can argue this, objects are not marked illegal, since objects by nature are neutral. Only actions can be marked illegal. For that reason, torrents will always be legal. Even the contents can be marked legal even though they may contain cracks to the program. For example, the torrents that contain cracks (almost) always contain the demo of the software. Merely downloading the contents of the torrents and installing the demo from the contents is not illegal. It becomes illegal when you take the time to apply any cracks to the program—the act of "unlocking" the program through means not allowed by the author(s) of the medium. Cracks are useless if not put to use—and i don't mean to imply that they should be put to use, especially since i consider myself a programmer.

To cancel a service, at the top click on "My Services," click on the little icon next to the service you want to cancel, and on the next page scroll all the way down and click on "Request Cancellation."

There's also another video floating around the internet called "America: Freedom to Fascism." You can see it on Google Videos and many others that lead to similar thinking. It mostly started due to 9/11, that is, it stemmed from the theories of 9/11. The New World Order idea to me is too far fetched to consider. While the movie did provoke thought, at least controversy, making me want to consider reading all about the income tax, why it exists and how it is justified, and about the IRS, even with all the controversy and propaganda the video suggested, you cannot conclude like the video does that there is a plan going on in wanting to unify the world under one central banking government and form a new world order. It is easier to believe in the videos i saw concerning 9/11 conspiracy than it is to believe in the possibility of a new world order.