truefusion

I had heard of it being hosted on Xisto - Web Hosting servers, but i didn't know the owner was a former Xisto member. Interesting fact.

Okay, i was wrong, it wasn't only after—it was during and before as well, that he was a deist. Re-read the quote you provided by Albert Einstein. He isn't condemning impersonal gods, only personal gods. So it isn't childish for him to believe in an impersonal god. Read numbers 2 and 3 (number three is dated 1954): http://atheism.about.com/od/ Practically all of his statements wherever a personal god is mentioned either implicitly or explicitly refers to the Biblical God and he speaks against. But when an impersonal god comes in, it's accepted. I don't really mean to say anything with that. I just understand your position. If i assume "you" is plural, then you're not accusing any one, just speaking against an act, therefore it's on something else. I have reason to believe it's plural—it's also the better choice out of the others. (I should update that handbook some time...) I don't know why He created us. Yet He says our sinful ways trouble Him deeply. I don't know why He would put Himself through that either. The Bible isn't always clear on purpose or God's thoughts and ways (though things become more clear the more you read). I've seen this statement before and it's hard to explain away. I wouldn't say that just 'cause He allowed it to happen means He wanted it to happen, or else why would He grieve about it? Thanks to the Book of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and 1 Samuel, we understand that God has standards that He follows before He takes away freewill. The most apparent one which is found both in Exodus and 1 Samuel is that the person must first decide the path themselves. This is also reflected in the New Testament in one of (or some of) Paul's writings. (Concerning Adam and Eve in heaven: the Garden of Eden was not planted in Heaven.) I see. I can't say He approved all forms of slavery, i can only say He approved the one He set up laws for. If i compare it to now, where do i look? If slavery is still going on today, and it's not being done according to the Biblical laws, then i can't say He approves of it. "Too far," i suppose, would be causing damage that causes the receiver to lose something irreplaceable. Every consequence has their own degree of punishment. I don't know how slaves were punished in the first century, but i wouldn't be surprised if the slaves in the slavery known in American history were begging to be released on the seventh year. We don't have just one copy of Scripture, we have several. Scholars not only compare and contrast, they also use other verses to verify the integrity and meaning of the text. Third party sources are references of the Bible from early church fathers. They would often quote the verses in their writings. Human errors in the text were found and corrected based on other findings of scripture (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc). But the ones that were found aren't significant enough to deny the existence of God and the Biblical events. It also showed that if there are still some insignificant ones, it was due to mere copy mistakes. Concerning the act of Adam and Eve, even people today fail to do simple tasks. Concerning Satan entering Heaven, he didn't. The Garden of Eden wasn't planted in Heaven, it was planted somewhere in the East of the earth. Satan didn't get by any security, he just needed a disguise so Eve can't say, "Say, aren't you the devil?" I only know of one Abrahamic religion that says the Garden of Eden was in Heaven, but it's not Judaism or Christianity. M'ks. But i have no idea how South Park treats the word "confusion." Outside of the Bible there are Apocryphas which mention Christ's death and resurrection. However, the majority of these are of Gnostic Christian origin and therefore are not trustworthy. You can tell they're of Gnostic origin when you see the word "sophia" (since they tend to use this flawed form of logic), when it talks about actual multiple gods (i.e. not false gods) existing, and just things that sound paganistic. You're not bound to find any references within secular history sources. Bibles were taken out of public schools a long time ago in the US.

I'll run out of quote bbcode if i address this as i have been doing, so i'll take up the numbering system i normally use. [1] I don't understand your statement. You said i didn't accept that we take shape for granted, by my statements imply that we do. How else would i be able to say round doesn't necessarily mean spherical? As to my sun question: that was the point, to ask one of the most obvious questions that can ever be said, in order to prove a point. You said asking obvious questions brings things into circular logic. Perhaps you were using a definition of "circular" that is not commonly used or expected. Only way to clear this up is for you state what you mean by "circular." [2] That's an easy burden and can be done away with one word: interpretations. St. Augustine, one of the early church fathers, in his book the Literal Meaning of Genesis* speaks against those kinds of believers. Concerning your second question, you're going to have to tell me if it was your question. Did you intend a colon instead? Both characters are close to each other and require the shift key. But i seem to have answered your first question without referring to shape. [3] Yes the burden is on you. When the people you talk about come here and start doing what you said, then you can tell them the burden of proof is on them. Until then, the burden of proof is still on you to light science on scripture so that you may prove your statement. [4] The first sentence shows that war can be bad. Bad—you're still using a term that implies objective evil; however, you do away with the possibility of it being objective by stating what you stated. If there is no sin, if you can't reap what you sow, then wars cannot be in any way bad for next generations, for how would they therefore be able to reap what they sowed? Your argument is non-sequitur. [5] It doesn't show religion does that, it shows people do that. Something i have said i don't deny plenty of times. Religion is metaphysical and unconscious—it can't act. Concerning debates, we're in the very same debate you speak of. Debates are productive in that they help provide insight and helps disclose things that are false. [6.1] Heh, you didn't need to give me proof that the Bible was written by humans; what Christian doesn't know that? But that doesn't mean that it is therefore false, and it doesn't mean it wasn't inspired by God. If things being written by humans made things false, every science book in the world would therefore be false. Just because people do indeed write things to protect their faith like we are doing, it doesn't follow that that is the only reason why they (and we) wrote it, and it doesn't follow that that is one of the reasons they (and we) wrote it. It could be for promotional purposes. (I mean, are you insecure of what i'm saying, that's why you write what you wrote?) No need to even argue for their faith in these writings. It seems absurd that devotionals are written because the writers are insecure and seek to protect their faith rather than the many other reasons they could do it for. Begging the question doesn't show that you proved they wrote it for only the reasons you stated; false dichotomies don't prove that either. [6.2] I'ma assume "he" here are the writers of the Bible. God can control them, but He doesn't eliminate freewill from people for no reason. But i don't understand your statement: why would God be offended for people worshipping Him? The Qur'an only says to end the life of those who previously believed and then disbelieved. If they commit an act that the Qur'an speaks against, the followers of Islam would be subject to the same hells as anyone else. I don't know if it is mentioned because of insecurity or not—i can't even validly prove that it is because of insecurities. All i can say is what i have already said in this topic: i have shown that the Biblical verse that "parallels" the Qur'an (accusation by the unbeliever) is taken out of context; that i am not a Muslim, so it is better off if they addressed the issue for their Qur'an; and that my faith is elsewhere. [7] You are accusing that all my statements are circular (you've done this more than once, though). You've given yourself a heavy burden. I suppose it can be said you were in some ways attempting to prove that all my statements are circular. However, those attempts were fallacious—which you keep on repeating; then you tell me my statements are circular. If it can be said that my statements are in any way circular, it's because i have had to address your statements more than once, showing the same fallacy. And here you bring up another straw man: you accuse me of saying that i said atheists are in denial of truth. I said it can be seen that they live in denial because they choose to deny that which is impossible, for man is too ignorant to deny these things. This changes the definition of the word "denial" where it excludes any bad connotations; but you chose to assert that i said that atheists deny the truth. [8] I didn't call you denial the way you took it as (assuming you're an atheist; i can't remember if you said you were), that would be another instance of the previous straw man you committed. But i do believe spirituality can solve problems; it can solve problems that science can't. I can understand stuff like god of the gaps, but a lot of the examples you give don't necessarily "infect" science. The word "science" means the study thereof. Place an adjective before it and you have a specific term for it rather than a general term—like "social science." Some words don't even include the word science but fall under the category—these tend to end in "ology." Anything can be a theory, especially in theoretical science. Many of these religions try to prove these theories in their own scripture. Anything that's a theory can be entertained. You bring up another straw man: i never said Biology has out-dated data, i said many of the biology books do. I don't mind if research is being done to find accurate truths, but if the information is old and inaccurate and it is being protrayed as if it is true, then toss out the books, or at least constantly point out what is now false. [9] You've just avoided all the information and sources i gave out. How can you still say there is a difference? You're just adding to the list i added to. But you try to make it seem that when scientists do it, it's okay—which only supports my previous statements and shows your faith. [1] Straw man: i never said he was a theist, i said he was a deist. These are two different things: the latter is inherently illogical. (Read my Xisto profile to understand why.) [2] That quote is out-dated. That quote is most likely taken before he became a deist, which would be before he reached middle age or so. People can change their minds when they grow up. To prove it i'll give you two things you can look up: search:deism albert einstein and search:dinesh christopher hitchens (click on the video on YouTube). Even Christopher Hitchens admits Einstein was a deist. How can an atheist of his stature admit such a thing? [3] M'ks. [4] I'm not sure whether this is accusing me of something or not, or addressing the topic at hand, or something else. But i believe people do indeed have every right to believe what they want. The Bible shows similar in Ezekiel, the Gospels, etc. Indeed, if they choose to deny it, that's their choice. However, that doesn't mean i should allow falsehood concerning my religion (or any other religion if i knew it was false). [5] Assuming they're facts as you say (though i find it weird that you are even showing me these things, since you claim you are a believer), i have already addressed the first one on one of my websites (link). (I think i've been to Dark Bible before.) Since i've seen these arguments before, it should be safe to assume that you are asserting the Bible promotes sin. Rather than attempting to address all these pages here (though if you want i can PM my rebuttals to you), i'll mention the irony of these arguments: Sin only exists if God exists; an atheist has to show these things are evil objectively. Objective morality is only possible with God, since the consequences are unavoidable. Anything moral where the consequences are avoidable is subjective, and you can't prove anything with subjectivity. Since God does not exist in the world of atheism, neither does objective "good" and "bad." Therefore it is fallicious to say that the Bible promotes evil. The arguments presented always run off of assumptions, the most common one being that the unbeliever is justified when they claim things are evil. Moral pluralism is the thing unbelievers also run off of, but for some reason they don't know it. It doesn't follow that because we don't like something, it is therefore evil and wrong. Take for example pain. Although some people like pain, the majority of poeple don't. Is pain therefore inherently evil? Or is it necessary for whatever it is necessary for? Therefore it is not the case that pain is evil, but rather that which causes the pain can be evil. But it wouldn't follow that that which causes pain is always evil. For example, popping a bone back into its socket. Does the person that popped the bone back into the socket become evil therefore? So pain and suffering is not the deciding factor on whether or not something is evil. A child could always argue that they suffer from the spanking they receive from their parent, whether it was one spank or several. I heard some humanists are trying to do away with spanking though discipline is required. Children can't reason on the same level as adults, therefore logic isn't going to prevent them from committing foolish acts. People commit foolish acts all the time. Many who have never been spanked in their lives have been arrested for committing crimes. Therefore sin is not entirely what we think it is. Therefore it cannot be argued that because we don't like something it is therefore wrong. [1] You may click on the same links i gave miladinoski. [2] Wanting God to be one way does not follow that because He turned out to be different He therefore does not exist. The case may be said that you want there to be more than one path to heaven so that unbelievers can argue against God if God were to place them elsewhere come Judgment Day. This is why you should stop arguing from insecurity: your very own statements can be seen as insecure if we use the very same logic you've been using to claim insecurity. By believing in a God that does not discriminate, you get rid of hell and consequences. Getting rid of hell and consequences, a more peaceful afterlife can come about it. It is a form of security therefore. So stop arguing from insecurity, for the same can be turned around.

I can't see talking to someone that isn't there as beneficial either. I'm a monotheist. I understand how assumptions without proof can cause disbelief and other statements without proof; it's a great way to feel secure. You can do away with God or a god by calling theories facts; and when they fail to do away with God or a god, you can always go back and fix them until they, at least subjectively, deny the existence of God or a god. (Do note this entire statement of mine is rhetorical.)

When did he find God? Before or after sexually offending someone? Nothing wrong with it if he found God afterwards.

I won't guarantee anything, but it seems simple enough. Though, i might go a bit further with the script. Hopefully there are developer notes in the source code. I'ma assume the statistics is only for the index page.

How did you show that my argument was circular? All you've been saying is that you call it and consider it circular—that doesn't make it circular. If the fallacy was as obvious as you say it is, i would have seen it by now. If in order for me to accept what is seen, how can i accept it if i don't see it? I don't even see how asking "the obvious" is the byproduct of circular logic. Take this for example: Me: Is the sun bright? You: Circular logic! It doesn't follow. You didn't prove to me once that i committed circular arguments. When i said just how unbelievers act exactly like believers in my first response to you in this topic, you called my argument circular and pointed to Copernicus and Galileo, implying that my statement was false (for whatever reason that was) (i.e. that i was acting like one of the people speaking against Copernicus, etc) while your statement was the (absolute) truth (i.e. like which you say Copernicus, etc, spoke). That's begging the question: you assumed my statement was false or held no truth and concluded it by mentioning Copernicus, etc. Then came the round and flat earth situation—your second assertion that i was committing circular logic. You committed a straw man in trying to prove that my statement was circular: I never mentioned any ball in my statement. A circle is round, but that doesn't make it a sphere. A quarter, dime, you-name-it, is round, but it's not a sphere. The Bible mentions the earth is a sphere. Put these two statements in any order you like, it won't make it circular. I am not arguing for the sake of argument, i am arguing for the sake of proof. Science and religion do get along in whatever area they get along—which there are plenty. Saying that doesn't prove your previous statement. Sure, the theory of evolution is not in agreement, but i wouldn't say it makes up science, nor would i say it's as widely supported as it is said to be—but that's another topic. I supplied a link for the sake of proving that my statement is not a fallacy or false. And i haven't observed this "overuse" you speak of. Sure many concepts have been shown false. I just used another term for "concepts:" "interpretations." But "religious books" is ambiguous. There are many religious books, but that doesn't mean they're all sacred to the religion. If i were to assume the sacred ones, the ones held above the rest, it doesn't follow that because certain interpretations were taken down, that the books fell down with them. Pull up a Biblical verse and shine "science" on it, since the burden of proof is on you to show that they were proved myths. You keep saying that there more than a handful of them, so it shouldn't be hard to do this—probably the easiest burden (at least from your perspective) given to you. The example was merely an example. I don't deny actions done in the name of religion and in the name of anti-religion. But that doesn't prove that all wars are bad. Remember, the keyword is "all," not "some;" it's easy to prove that some wars were bad. You argued that wars are bad. That implies that you believe sin exists, for how can there be something that is "bad" yet no sin? So either wars aren't bad in any way, or sin exists. And by the way you've been speaking, in order for something to exist, there must be evidence of it. Do i even have to point to wars to show that people are evil? I don't need to bring in heaven or hell to show that people are sinners and are trapped in sin. How'd you pull up slavery, weapons and terrorism from bribing the jobless? That's taking things beyond context. But i have already said i don't deny crimes committed in the name of religion. I only state that just because there have been such instances, it does not follow that religion is inherently evil, the source of evil, and whatever else you said it was. I think it was Christopher Hitchens that said he was an anti-theist and not an atheist. But concerning the context, the productive part would be the jobless actually receiving an earning they can live off of. False dichotomy. There is still the case that they wanted the knowledge of that to spread without caring for its protection. To expound further on the fallacy of your argument: All unbelievers seek to protect their faith, therefore they are insecure. And yes, i request for proof for things that are fallacious. Yes, it's clear what is illogical: you're begging the question again, which came from a previous begging-the-question—circular. You're still asserting insecurity as if it's the only alternative. I won't deny that there are some believers that believe because they are insecure. Pull up whoever to show it, but it doesn't follow that one instance is every instance, and it doesn't follow that the first instance was due to insecurity—that's a form of hasty generalization. The Bible being written by humans doesn't bother me. Not everything written in the Bible was for the belief in God or faith—it deals with a lot of Jewish history, etc, as well. For me it's not necessarily how they obtained the information written in the Bible, but rather if it is deniable and supportive. If one claims "such and such is false," they have to show it is if it's not already obvious. I can do whatever it takes to show that there is no god, only to find out that's impossible. So i am left with two choices: believe that there is a god or take the agnostic approach. I can choose to remain ignorant (i.e. take the agnostic approach) or seek truth. I'm not one that can sit still remaining ignorant concerning something i sought to disprove or concerning something i am interested in. This is why i see atheism as the least logical: atheism tries to deny that which it can't. Therefore statements like "it requires more faith for atheism" come up. In a sense, it can be said that atheism is to live in denial, for that's what it is: it is seeking to deny purpose, objective morality, deities, a spiritual realm (though science doesn't deny the possibility of other realms), etc. There is no difference in science and what you are asserting about religion. Planned conventions were shut down before they even got a chance to open because the topic was on the criticizing of the theory of evolution (see Michael Polanyi Center). Ernst Haeckel drew inaccurate images of evolution for scientific advancement. Biology books are filled with old, out-dated data with many not even saying it's old and outdated. People have lost their jobs for suggesting something, based on what they observed, that would contradict the theory of evolution. All for scientific advancement. Should i then do similar to what you've been doing? Or do you see the fallacy in claiming that something is false due to supposed insecurities? There is no difference.

Straw man: you make me appear i call a tennis ball flat when i didn't. You didn't prove that statement of mine is circular. However, that last sentence is true, in that you're right, i don't call ball flat; a ball is a sphere. Now if you could try to show that the first argument of mine that you called circular is circular, then you would finally fulfill what i have been requesting from you concerning circular arguments. You can try again on this one, too, if you like. I don't do research on something unless i see a need in doing so. Considering the context, i'll repeat myself: "[chaos and attacks on the area you work in which you say were caused by religion] doesn't follow that for that reason it's my lookout to put people in a category." That's what was the fallacy i was pointing out. You didn't need Copernicus and his experience, which can't objectively prove by itself that religious folk are against science, to show me that believers are against certain things in the scientific community. I know believers don't believe in everything science preaches, but that doesn't mean believers, religion and science don't get along. The generalization i was referring to was when you concluded it was my lookout to place people under a category. However, your view on religion is pretty general (and overused by unbelievers, i might add): it's a delusion, imaginary, and a causer of chaos. And the only religious concepts i've seen science shatter was faulty God of the gaps arguments. Even if i ask Japan, it still wouldn't prove that all wars are bad. Let us consider a country with a leader who did not care for human life except his own. Anyone who didn't see it his way were put to death or jailed or stripped of everything they owned. Listening to him provided no real benefit either—people would still be oppressed to some significant level. The people one day had had enough. They started war to end the non-sense—the only method they had to put an end to the oppression. In the end they prevailed. Though there were many casualties, the outcome and what followed was prosperous. Thanks for the compliment. But i had assumed you knew about Christianity. I'll explain the need for Christ very briefly and simplistically: Man sins; sin leads to death; man can't save himself from sin, therefore requiring a Savior; that Savior is Christ, which gives life. Though simple, it shouldn't be hard to see the point. And i won't argue that Christians don't go around trying to gain converts in their missions. Assuming you're using sound judgment and since i don't live where you live, i'll take your word for it in that certain Christians bribe the poor into faith. I won't agree that that's the best way of converting people; however, i don't see how you can find that unproductive. But if that last sentence of yours is supposed to provide insight on how you see it as unproductive, then i am looking at more fallacies. It doesn't follow that attempting to form unity is the root of all social problems. You're better off arguing that the love for money is. (Quote the Biblical verses next time, not italicizing them; it's against the rules to use BBcode that allows the earning of myCENTs when you are not the source of the text.) Thanks for attempting to show that it's a delusion. Here are the fallacies: #1 asserts, without proving, that the intentions of the believing writers were to protect their belief in God. #2 is a subset of #1 in that it assumes intentions that haven't been shown to be true but adds to #1. You're begging the question again (a common thing among unbelievers): you're assuming religion was caused into existence for the sake of manipulation and for the sake of having power and authority over others, and you therefore try to conclude that. You can't conclude presumptions, it's illogical. (By the way, Einstein was a deist.) You're asking me here questions that your previous post answers—your very own words. I don't see that the verses degrade themselves; however, you stated that if taken in a materialistic point of view, they become less productive. As to not repeat myself on the matter, i'll end this part with this: The Biblical verses don't change over time; the interpretations are the ones that are capable of doing that. If interpretations changing over time was a bad thing, scientific evidence would be considered in the same way you consider Biblical verses. After all, scientific theories are mere interpretations of scientific evidence; these interpretations are subject to change as new data is presented. There's no difference. Mhmm

Before attempting to address your post, i read the entire thing just in case you attempted to show that my argument was circular before this little section. However, you didn't attempt to do it. You're still asserting; and you say your argument(s) has (or have) reason. It's easier to believe that they have reason if they didn't beg the question. (As a side note, the Bible says the earth is a sphere. To tell you the truth, "the earth is round" is similar in logic as "the earth is flat." Just 'cause it's round doesn't mean it's not flat.) You only mentioned their names; you didn't point to them as in provided a link. It's in a way assuming that i would find the same sources of information on them as you have. What if i don't? How could "pointing" to them, therefore, help you prove anything if i don't find the information you assume i would find? I don't know where you live (though i could take a guess) and i don't know what "that religion" is referring to (since this topic contains more than one religion and Copernicus could have delt with people from many different religions), but that doesn't follow that for that reason it's my lookout to put people in a category. My religion puts people in a category based on actions just like you say you do. Just because followers of my religion may not do so or do so differently, it doesn't follow that the religion itself is just as the followers make it seem like it is. You can look it up yourself, you'll find that all people are placed under the same category, equally. That's the problem with your reasoning: it's basically generalizing in the same way Saint_Michael was. You can't show me that your arguments have reason if they commit fallacies. (As another side note, i have no idea to what religion you are referring to when you talk about a religion that is practiced in your country.) You make a lot of things that aren't necessarily bad appear bad. For example, you can't argue that all wars are bad, for that's to say that all wars have an unbeneficial, unproductive outcome. But another problem in your argument is that you leave out unbelievers. You make it seem that more wars with less killings is worse than rulers who terminated probably more lifes than these wars combined. I'll agree war can be bad, but it doesn't follow that all wars are. Concerning the income of religious organization, you again try to make something look bad though it's not necessarily bad. Last i checked, a lot of this income (at least for my religion) goes into what i previously said: churches, missionary hospitals, etc, that help those in need—be it spiritually or not. You don't need to accept a spiritual side, but that doesn't make things bad, nor does it make spirituality false or imaginary. Why should it matter if they're trying to bring people to Christ at the same time? Why is that bad? Because it can lead to chaos? If that were the case, might as well get rid of life itself, for life can lead to chaos. You have to realize the intentions behind bringing people to Christ. It's not to start chaos—never was—it was to bring salvation. It's not the bringing salvation that causes chaos, it is resistance that can occur that causes it. The problem is not, therefore, on the religion that brings salvation to all, but on those that resist, and when they resist start chaos. And before you start saying, "Well, there's been a lot of 'salvation-bringers' which only caused a mess wherever they brung it," that would be a twist of my words, because that would be replacing the intended definitions of my words to make things appear otherwise—kind of like a straw man argument. People should be smart enough to know what kind of salvation-bringing i'm talking about—the kind my religion talks about. That's the problem, though; people assume things about my religion that aren't true, therefore causing people to reject it. One of the main reasons why i join debates like these is to clear falsehood, for falsehood and ignorance is one of the main causes of resistance or disbelief. Although you still have to show that they're delusional, etc, some of these verses make no sense in a materialistic sense, for they weren't meant to be in that sense. If you can point out to me why poetry is to be taken materialistically and literally and not as an artistic way of expressing something, then maybe you can convince me that it is sensible to take these poetic verses into a materialistic sense. Many (non-poetic) verses can be taken in a literal sense, sure, but you'll notice the same message is bound to come out anyway. I don't really see the need or logic to take things materialistically if it degrades things, but that's up to the people. Concerning a posteriori, it's interesting on how my faith is based on experience as well. Concerning the topic, there can't be two contradicting a posterioris. Therefore a debate on the matter can help here in finding the truth. Concerning personality typing, i prefer Socionics myself; i only pointed to an MBTI page because it's the most comprehensive one i've found on my type. I can't say i'm 100% as mentioned in that page, but it says enough to understand me better. In Socionics i'm an INTj; i love to anaylize. I'ma assume when you said INTJ you meant MBTI, due to the fact that the last letter is capitalized and because that was what the context was. But if it's accurate on a significant level, then i'll accept it and put it to use. I find it intersting, though, that this whole personality typing thing came from a believer. Socionics with their V.I. can imply design, which makes things even more interesting.

Call it what you want, but you still need to show it's circular. And concerning Copernicus or Galileo, i never studied them, but were they told that they used circular arguments without the opposing side showing that they did? My arguments have reason and are observable. You didn't really point anything out, you just asserted things without proof or reason by calling things delusional and superstitious. By calling it delusional and superstitious without reason or proof, you can't help but fall into that category. You appear to have hanged on the way this topic was presented, on the verses that were taken out of context. The "look at the world around you" argument never holds. If i look at the world around me, i am forced to go back to the cliché of how many murders were committed by unbelievers, which total to more than any killings committed by believers. In case you're wondering about names: yes, it's the same old Stalin, Pol Pot, etc—you name it. I don't like using old arguments because i'd rather use new ones. But when unbelievers continue bringing up these old, fallacious arguments, it can't be helped. And if i continue looking around the world, i see plenty of believers going on missions, setting up missionary hospitals, churches, etc, that help those in need—they're known for that. I'm not fond of falsehood; you appear to be not fond of falsehood too, or else why would you call the things i believe in delusions and imaginary? (Which makes me wonder if you read certain atheist books, as those are very old assertions.) If i told you that your faith (i.e. the belief that there is no god) was delusional and imaginary, you'd most likely talk against it. But i didn't really take offense at your statement, since no actual point was made (for me to take offense at). I don't really take offense at many things; however, i may go "overboard" in taking things down, as my goal concerning these things tend to be to take things down entirely. Do research on MBTI INTP if you don't believe me—for that's what i am.

Cascading style sheets; a way to make your website (or program if you're using the Qt GUI library) look better. It's a mark-up language, yes. You can't—it's not that kind of a mark-up language. CSS is like an extension, in a way, that makes HTML look better to the viewer. Without HTML, CSS is nothing. CSS is dependent on other languages. Sure, but these assume that you have some basic knowledge of CSS. Some WYSIWYG programs do the CSS for you. But those are usually commercial software.

Problem appears to be fixed. Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

Actually, this whole thing shows just how much unbelievers are willing to accept things that are taken out of context (i.e. just how gullible they are, too). You talk about people being manipulated by tactics taken by believers. How apparent is it for this for unbelievers? One simple, small, taken-out-of-context example, and you already are in some kind of hidden agreement, even though the topic starter commited obvious fallacies just like everyone else who is in agreement. But for some reason these fallacies aren't obvious to those who agree. You talk about the believers spreading hatred and faith manipulation against unbelievers, yet you and this topic shows the same thing except it is against believers.

I was thinking about helping out, but wasn't sure what i'd be able to do to help out. But if there's a public to-do list, that'd make deciding easier. Kompare could come in handy, just in case a newer version comes out when one was commiting changes.

I'm not sure if this is wishful thinking on my side, but maybe some day people will stop commiting the fallacy of taking things out of context. By the looks of the topic, this question is rhetorical, so there's no point in answering it. The interesting part is the topic starter quotes from two Abrahamic religions. Since it'll be better if a Muslim explained the Qur'anic verses, i'll just explain the Biblical verses. Those verses are no where in the New Testament. You were misinformed or assumed improperly. Kindly provide the verse number next time—Deuteronomy 13:9. The context is about a false prophet who tries to lead people into sin—detestable sin. The wages of sin is death. Consider the following scenario to help you better understand the reasoning behind the context: There was once a man who enjoyed manipulating people into doing what would only lead to their doom. He was quite cunning in his ways, capable of manipulating people to do things that he wanted without them knowing it. He brought distress and chaos into peoples' lives, many losing their lives because of it. You have two choices: allow this person to continue in their ways, or put an end to his ways. By portraying the verse in a way that you believe is a bad thing, you are therefore in favor of this person's deeds. Therefore what loses integrity and credibility is not the verse, but you yourself. This is what happens with ignorance. Verse: 2 Chronicles 15:13. Here's the irony: if you read chapter 15, you'll realize that this was done to cease the wars that were happening at that time and the distress that came with these wars. If we look at verse 19 (the last verse in the chapter), you'll find that they succeeded for a while: The main fallacy you commit in this statement is hasty generalization. You state that due to how religion has been misused, that therefore means that religion itself is inherently evil—this is obviously flawed. You also speak like the only religions that exist are the Abrahamic ones—the topic starter commits this same fallacy, so you're not alone in this one. No religion has a large amount of good representatives. Not even those that say that they have no faith can represent themselves well. It's not a new fact; the only thing is that Christianity seems to be the only one that acknowledges that a person can never work themselves into Heaven.

If the reason is due to standards incompliancy, why not use IE hacks? If IE hacks is out of the question, then i have an idea that wouldn't require much knowledge on the structure of WordPress. Since i'm a WordPress novice, you'll have to figure out how to implement this idea yourself. Make a new, empty template. This template will only be used for including other templates. Insert the following code and modify as needed: if (preg_match("#MSIE#", $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'])){ include "file"; // modify} else { include "file"; // modify}What i meant by you implementing this code, i mean there's bound to be some template variables that need to be set before (or after) this code (and the files it includes). This should decrease the learning curve. The only problem with this is that though the browser sent a MSIE header, it does not mean that it is a MSIE browser.

A long time ago we used to have the Army System installed. It didn't earn us any credits for raising levels, but it was fun. However, after an update to the Credit System occured (i think when version 2 was introduced), the Credit System and the Army System somehow conflicted with each other. This led to the removal of the Army System, and was better left for IPBGaming. I'm a bit neutral on the matter: i wouldn't mind an arcade, but the rewards should be boasting privileges—another thing for the Xisto awards.

Does the manual say why it can't be used for an operating system? You can use Wubi until you figure out why. After figuring out why (assuming it's possible), if it's not serious, or something silly, then you can uninstall Wubi and install Linux the average way. But after installing Linux via the LiveCD installer and you no longer want Linux installed, you're going to need the original CD of the primary operating system to restore the MBR, unless you modify the primary operating system's boot loader manually.

OpaQue already has Kontera ads for Xisto. Albeit, the chances of those ads of showing up is 1% (i.e. according to the Kontera topic). OpaQue should modify the script and increase his percentage. And if you haven't noticed, the sign-up link is a referral link. So the more people sign up, OpaQue gets some income.

Even with a different algorithm, i don't think the burden on the server doing the calculations in the backend would decrease enough to have myCENTs convert into dollars immediately after receiving myCENTs.

You already asked the first part of this question and it has already been answered. If you ever done any programming before, you'd understand that even if there was a "deadline," that does not garuntee you'll have it done by then. Deadlines create tension, tension has the potential of causing lower quality coding. Formulating a plan is the easy part, accomplishing it is a whole different story. As for the second part of your question: Not sure what you mean by updating automatically, but i'm sure OpaQue doesn't modify the code that is already in effect, that is located on the forums' server—that would cause havoc. OpaQue will obviously apply the changes when he solves this bug. If he didn't want this fixed, he wouldn't have been working on it.

It's easier to interact with PHP with AJAX. But why not send the username through the URL and retrieve the value using the _GET variable in PHP? If the script requires JavaScript enabled to work, then just go all out AJAX.

Did you try deleting the old value? I'm not sure why it just doesn't overwrite the value, but edit the file for the "old value" and remove the relative line(s). And just in case, back up the file before editing: CONSOLE sudo cp /etc/xml/scrollkeeper.xml /etc/xml/scrollkeeper.xml~

The syntax is quite simple; it's simpler than PHP. If you know PHP, then you shouldn't have much trouble with Python. There are just a few things that are done differently: In Python, variables don't start with dollar signs; to call a member in an object, you don't use arrows (->), you use dots; whitespace is mostly required, with very few exceptions; Python doesn't do automatic typing, like changing an integer into a string; semicolons aren't required; etc. The Python documention is quite informative and gets straight to the point.

You're not yet registered to the myCENTs system. It's impossible for you to have lost any myCENTs without being registered.