truefusion

I wasn't interested in doing anything i consider special yesterday, so i didn't do anything special. I treated yesterday similar to any other day.

From what i've been observing, even though there has been a loss, some form of reimbursement usually follows, even if it may take days for one to see a change. For example, a couple of days ago, my total earnings showed that i went down about (more or less) $7. Today it shows my actual earnings and a little more. This observation is not limited to me; i have observed it from other members as well. You might notice your myCENTs labed ready with a huge amount, ranging from over 300, 700, or even over 1500 myCENTs. That could be the reimbursement waiting to kick in; but since this isn't an official explanation, try not to quote me on that.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ The video is actually being played backwards. The band practiced their song backwards for the sake of obtaining a creative music video. What amazes me the most is how perfect the drummer pulled all the hits off. Relative video about the making of it: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Interesting; if i had not attempted to look for new posts, i would have missed this topic. Thanks for the acknowledgement, everyone.

Religion is neither physical nor conscious. Therefore religion cannot act. If i follow the logic, i find it to be non-sequitur. It does not follow that because God is everywhere He is therefore everything in existence. Him being in you does not mean He is you. Doesn't follow, just like previous ones. But the former statement is accurate. You use the same logic throughout your post.

[1] You address my number two here, but i don't see where i requested in my number two to prove the inexistence of God. Regardless, if you're trying to do so there, then you didn't really prove anything, as you didn't do away with the middle. The middle doesn't need to be a mixture of the two, it is just merely the undecided. They are undecided because nothing has given way for either in this ontological dilemma. [2] What did i do to show egotism? Even though i didn't say everything is about us, i don't see the difference between humanists, then, or other individuals who seek to benefit society or other individuals. Yet, if we are insignificant, why should we care about any of us? I don't think it matters how big the universe is; if you haven't noticed, Christianity is about denying yourself, admitting that you are not perfect, and that you require a savior. I fail to see the egotism in that. Also, life outside the earth is not in contradiction of Biblical knowledge or scripture. After all, what are angels? And what is God? Also, Genesis, nor the rest of the Bible, from my knowledge, doesn't do away with life outside the earth. Probably due to the reasons i gave, about angels and God. It would be self-contradictory if it denied life outside of earth. The church won't have any problem accepting life outside the earth, 'cause it already does. Therefore, there would be no need to "decode the Bible again." [3] Where did you get the idea that theologians, at least the Christian ones, can't accept something infinite? Last i checked, the afterlife is infinite in time; that many accept God as infinite. I have no trouble picturing an infinite universe. Only science seems to have that trouble, in that is says the universe is either constantly expanding or is already contracting. How can something infinite expand or contract? Therefore, in order to even make sense of that, you'd have to play around with the definition of the universe until it makes sense. Concerning the monster, i wouldn't say it's necessarily convenient for the one who yells, "Monster!" Concerning your statement about history books, what was the purpose of that statement? If to deny or prove against something, then you'll have to try again. [4] There are two ways to feed a person: spiritually and physically. God provides for both. He set up the plants and animals as a source of food. It is also written that God doesn't let His faithful ones go hungry. You say innocent people. I suppose that is due to your faith that there is no God—where there is no God, everything is permissible, no? When a being is omniscient, who would be able to hide their evil deeds? Can you objectively prove that Christians, when they go out to feed the hungry, give toys to poor children, build missionary hospitals, etc, aren't inspired by God to do so? After all, it is their faith that moves them. [5] I wouldn't necessarily say it proves it false. [6] You seem to be prone to statements that say one thing is not something, only to go on to say that it is. If you read the Origin of Species, chapter 4, it explains everything of what Darwin thought about beneficial and non-beneficial change and about natural selection. (The book is within the public domain.) Darwin's explanation is a bit interesting in that it talks about mother nature, which is paganistic in its speech. I find it interesting that a person who argues from naturalism would even include metaphysical things like natural selection into their description. He basically explains just how random the universe is, where out of pure misfortune, you can die just because mother nature made a mistake in selecting the proper mutation for you. I'll pick intelligent design over that any day. But to add to this, on GodTube, i saw a debate once—two atheists versus two christians. One of the atheists asked one of the christians, "How can you walk a mile without taking one step at a time?" This is basically similar to what you said but in the form of a question. But my question to you is: How can you walk a mile without anyone bearing witness of it—not even your own kind (after all, animals have their own societies too, so to speak)? [7] Why limit living fossils to humans? Yes, that's what you're asking for: living fossils. There are plenty of living fossils today. The quote of Darwin on that Wikipedia article isn't sufficient enough for me to explain why these living organisms didn't evolve even in the slightest, for Darwin says that they were still exposed to competition, even if it is by a small amount, and because not all those living fossils, if any, came from fresh water. [8] It is only convenient 'cause it is logical and in my favor. I don't see how, logically, a creator can have a creator. That would make the created a false creator, bringing it down to our level. So then we are left with the one who created. If you ask, "Who created that one then?" and continue down that path, then you must admit that there is no endless line of creators, due to it being illogical, therefore the only remaining and logical solution is: the creator was not created. Earlier in your post you talked about things infinite, saying that it is false to assume that all things are limited. Therefore God is unlimited, in that He is eternal, never having a beginning, nor ever coming to an end. Atheists tend to ask, if you can consider God to be infinite, why not the universe? Though the answer is obvious from our faith, i shall ask you: If you can consider the universe infinite, why not God? The answer to that is as obvious as the answer to the question i said atheists tend to ask: it is because you believe God doesn't exist. You not believing does not mean others should follow in your steps and that because you don't believe, everything concerning God is illogical. To add to this, even if people refuse to believe, or even if people believe for security reasons, it does not follow that God therefore does not exist. [9] You don't have to believe in those things, but that doesn't make those people irrational when they receive evidence for their actions. Rather than trying to prove something with your quotes, why not realize the evil that that John person committed by taking advantage of those people on some level, by placing himself up as if he were a god. Rather than just being helpful without being egotistic, he goes on to tell those people to pray to him if they want him to bring them stuff. In the end of your post you try to prove that you have a religion, which concerns doing good. How is it good to allow or accept non-sense like the kind committed by that John person all because you don't believe in the supernatural? Also, it's "remind," not "remained." Concerning the rest of what i mark as number 9, an explanation from a naturalist's perspective doesn't necessarily do away with the supernatural. It does not follow that because there is a natural explanation to things that there was no supernatural being behind it all. [10] I already mentioned how you contradicted yourself; i don't have to repeat myself. But how did you manage to pull off everything after that first question from my number 10 in my previous post? You talked about how religion doesn't answer the big why-questions (even though you ended up concluding that they do regardless). So how did you manage to dive into all that other stuff? Those have nothing to do with the big why-questions. I know you've been doing a lot of reading concerning things atheism, but that doesn't mean you should commit red herrings just to mention them. [11] Actually, he said that before he was crucified. And according to scripture he did go around healing the sick, performing miracles. One of them was feeding around 5,000 people with just a few fish and pieces of bread. Also, it doesn't follow that because there are natural annoyances and disasters that there is no God. All those things you mention happened in the Bible. So, no, it's not safe to conclude that there is no God because of which.

If it requires that DLL file in order for the trojan to do its thing, then i guess it is only limited to Windows users. Even if it wasn't, i don't have Greasemonkey installed on my Firefox, nor do i use Firefox as my main browser, even more so on any Windows computer i have.

[1] I'll accept that. However, i also want to emphasis how you correct yourself in your own examples: If you will examine all the examples following it, you see that you do not use "nobody cannot disprove" but rather "nobody can disprove." [2] Almost impossible, i would say, is the same as probable, as it's not necessarily impossible. However, here you are giving the impression that by proving another theory that doesn't mention God, you can disprove one that does. In this case, you seem to be alluding to theories that give no meaning to life. However, the same can be said for theories that mention God—that is, by proving a theory that doesn't mention God, you can prove a theory that does. In this case, i could allude to the Big Bang Theory. The irony is that evolutionists tend to use the Big Bang Theory too. Concerning Jesus's bones, i would say it is impossible to examine a being who is no longer on earth. So that would explain why no one has been able to examine Jesus. Concerning what you say about the Bible, that it contains stories without evidence, stories that are probable: I fail to see the difference concerning history books in schools, as far as evidence and probability is concerned. [3] You keep implying that your theory has proof, but have not shown any. As far as i am concerned, your theory is still equal to mine in probability. Faith is merely being used as a tool to avoid providing evidence. [4] I've only seen the Catholic chruch try to bring in Darwin into religion. But i agree with you: they shouldn't. However, i am glad you brought up Darwin's theory. I will state something that may surprise you: i believe in a change on a macro level. But don't let that go to your head. I do not believe in what Darwin's theory says about that change: that those changes can be beneficial. And remember what i said about that atheists are not protected against the burden of proof? You say there is plenty of proof, reasoning, etc, for Darwin's theory—but that's all you do, you say there is. You know what i find interesting? I have yet to see any change on a micro level that yielded to a change on a macro level that is beneficial. This is the reason why i believe Darwin's theory is still a theory, not that it has yet to be seen—for we've seen plenty of changes on a micro level that has shown itself on a macro level that were not beneficial in any way. If you can show me that a change on a micro level can create a change on a macro level that is beneficial to the organism, then you would be doing the scientific community a favor. [5] What is interesting about this part is that you are asking for concrete evidence from me, while you keep avoiding showing evidence for all the statements you've made. Atheists aren't protected against the burden of proof; you may not like that fact, but there's nothing that can be done about it. [6] The bearded fellow is illogical; i don't believe in it. God is immortal, why should He grow old? Why would He want to even appear old? I could never understand why people can even believe that God has a beard or ages. The reason why i don't believe that God is a giant apple is because the idea of an apple comes from creation, from life itself. God is said to have caused all matter into existence. How is it logical to even believe that He created Himself? [7] I skimmed through the first page, as i'm not going to read all the pages. You are a person of evidence, right? When you do something that gives you the evidence for something that you didn't have proof for, you start to believe. I would say it's a bit demeaning on your side by implying that those who are limited are simple or foolish, and in turn should be looked down upon for it. As far as i'm concerned, though they believed in supernatural things, they were still acting rational concerning the rich person with the evidence provided. [8] It is only logical to say that He is the prime mover. It is only logical to say that He is not bound to the laws He created. However, He still sets up standards for Himself which many have been given to the Jews. It's in the Old Testament. If you're going to deny this part, then keep in mind that you also need to deny my statement about history books. Second of all, belief in God causing all matter into existence does not limit knowledge. We don't have to ask "Why?" in order to know how. The Bible does not go into great detail as to how God caused things into existence. This is more than enough to cause curiousity in those who want to know how God did it. So this in no way limits knowledge concerning the universe. [9] Since you contradict yourself concerning the Dark ages, i'll skip that. And since the burden of proof is on you to prove that God did not create matter, or did not provide us with a mind to manipulate matter to our own advantage, and that man made God up, i'll skip that too. If you have any more assertions, please provide them. [10] Since you contradict yourself here by saying that religion does not provide answers to the big questions, while at the same time mention that they do, i'll skip this part also. Oh, and before i do, i noticed you make another assertion that needs proving. [11] You can remind me all you want, but you have to notice that's another assertion that needs proof. Also, the reason why you didn't hear much from theologists is probably because: 1. it's not their field and 2. you could have just stuck to the scientists that are atheists alone—i mean, you do live in the U.K., no? Also, concerning how many polls say how many atheists there are in the world, there must not be a lot of scientists then. Concerning doctors and medicine, even the Bible makes references to doctors. Even Jesus is caught saying that the sick need doctors. By the way, did i face it well? I like the "bash bash bash" part. But concerning evolution, He could have caused evolution. But, then, it is how we define that word. It's not beyond His reach, but that doesn't mean it's the only method of bringing matter into existence. But i've been telling adriantc a lot that atheists aren't protected by the burden of proof. If you admit a lot of what you said was said out of faith, then i won't call you up on it, too. I'ma assume you mean the Catholic church again—i notice that atheists like to strike them the most, especially those from the U.K. I don't know why they did. However, that's assuming they even did in the first place. Could you show me that they did? Concerning on why God didn't put more information in the Bible concerning life itself: i've already addressed this in the other topic you've posted in, where i responded to kobra500. The other topic was the one about scientific facts in the Bible. You can go look it up if you want.

Actually, the proof isn't in showing who wrote it down first, but in how they obtained the knowledge. I haven't seen anyone prove to me that the Jews got it from the Greek. Whether or not the Greeks had that knowledge before the Jews is beyond me—i mean, can you really judge based on who wrote it first? Writing it and knowing it are two different things. In this world anyone can take credit for something if they release the idea to the public first, regardless of who knew it first. The books of the Bible were inspired, written for specific purposes, on the current times of the Jewish people. I'ma assume you mean against the existence of God. I'ma also assume that you may be alluding to things like, perhaps, the theory of evolution. Personally i have not seen anything in science that is true that has contradicted God's existence. Since this is the perfect topic for such a thing, perhaps you can go about in mentioning what are these evidences. 'Cause if i were to say, "All scientific evidence points towards a case for God," how is that any different from what you have said? Facts will always be true—no wonder why they believe them. What did you do there? Oh, is this what you did? I don't know, i think i showed that for your case. You didn't disprove anything.

Is this topic supposed to be about which one we think is better? It doesn't necessarily have to be the card's fault, as it could just be faulty drivers. For example, the Nvidia drivers for Linux have bad support for 2D acceleration (which KDE4 makes a lot of use of). Although they're working on it, this shouldn't be the case, as they're a commercial company, and should have had more than just 3D acceleration support—which i wouldn't be suprised if the Windows drivers had full support. Faulty drivers can also cause the GPU fan to run at unnecessary speeds.

Any audio editor pretty much converts the MP3 into WAV automatically when importing the MP3. The only difference is that it doesn't save the file into a WAV file (in a non-temporary location). The thing about doing such conversions is that, unless the MP3 is at least CD quality, the MP3 due to compression will have lost some data, and all the data that could be retrieve is what will be in the WAV file. So if you're converting for the sake of quality, the MP3 should be at high quality. But you can use Audacity for your conversions and editing. It's free and open.

[1] Yes, i know and have seen those already. But you missed some; the fish with legs and American Atheists, to name a couple. [2] You say "nobody cannot disprove"—those are two negatives, meaning it is the equivalent of saying: "Anyone can prove the existence of God." This techniqually is enough to refute the remaining portion of number 2, as number 2 in its entirety basically runs off of that, but there are other things i would like to address. Firstly, if lack of evidence is enough to prove that a theory is unsupported and should be discarded (or dismissed), in which case you claim (or imply) that "God exists" is a theory, then "God does not exist" is also a theory, of which, by your own statement, shows that there is no proof for that theory. Therefore by your own statement we can dismiss the atheists' theory "God doesn't exist." Therefore making belief or disbelief in God or a god a matter of choice done out of faith and not reason or evidence. I'm not sure if you were alluding with the teapot analogy that belief in God (or in the analogy's case, the teapot) is absurd, but if you were, i have shown that both theories are equally "absurd." And since i have shown that belief and disbelief (at least for now) in God is a matter of choice in faith, that therefore refutes your ending statement for number 2 where you say that atheism is about evidence (or proof) and not belief. But to add more to it, questioning doesn't automatically make you an atheist, it may make you a skeptic, but not an atheist, since if an atheist questions everything, they obviously don't, as they don't believe in God or gods—meaning their questioning reaches an end at some point, at least concerning gods. [3] I'll accept your definition for living life to the fullest, but you haven't convinced me that it has nothing to do with religion, as your reasoning to show such doesn't show that religion is intrinsically evil. Religion is metaphysical, you can't grasp such a thing except within the mind. Therefore you cannot accuse religion of bringing ignorance and misery. Afterall, religion is a known source for wisdom and misery can only be caused by actions, not things metaphysical. What i find most interesting about your statement, however, is that you say religion restricts knowledge yet provides answers to big questions—answers that even science either has trouble answering or cannot answer whatsoever. That is self-contradicting. What makes things even more interesting and more self-contradicting is that the reason why it keeps us from progressing is because it has answered our "Why?" questions, yet you say that though that is the reason why it restricts us from gaining knowledge, we should get rid of those answers to the "Why?" questions and start asking "Why?" all over again. I can't help but react with a: Huh? That would mean when science fills those "Why?" questions, science would then be keeping us from progressing. To continue this, you say if we don't ask "Why?" we would be in the dark age. Well, according to you, since we have already asked and have answered "Why?", we are no longer in the dark age, therefore we no longer have to worry about getting out of it. Therefore your entire argument goes down the drain, as it is completely unnecessary to even mention such a thing as if it were a problem we are dealing with today, when it has already been done away with thousands of years ago. Do you see how you contradict yourself? Also, you say religion, as like many atheists, is the reason for evil. You know what i found ironic and slightly comical in a YouTube video concerning the "New Atheism in America"? I saw atheistic bumper stickers that all had statements that attempted to degrade or debunk believers (which many believers would find quite offensive), while one atheist stood next to it in front of the camera saying, "We are good people." The atheist was totally serious, but it seems he didn't notice the object he was standing next to. If you want, i can give you a link to the video. But let me talk about what you mention about the waiting room; that is, the implication. You say that you mean to imply that those waiting in the waiting room cannot do their best in building up society. Yet, what do we see? Though we know this life is temporary, that there is something more after it, Christians are known to be the ones to be most helpful than any other religion. (This is probably due to how many believers we have. But nevertheless...) There are not only charities ran by Christian organizations, but also hospitals, etc. So, it does not follow that knowledge in a temporary first life leads to apathy for that first life. [4] It seems we're back to the dark age again. Since i already refuted that, i'll address the rest. For one, you are correct that the one who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof, but i don't recall doing so in this topic. However, that is not to say that atheists are therefore left untouched by the burden of proof when they assert that God doesn't exist. Secondly, it does not follow that by making an illogical assertion, God therefore becomes illogical. That's called a strawman—they don't help anyone. For one, you speak a tautology when you say that the prime mover is the prime mover. Secondly, you imply that there must be a prime mover before the prime mover. You already know how illogical your statement is, so i don't have to tell you that; if you didn't, you wouldn't have used that to support any further statements. But why must there be something before God? If you're looking to prove that God has no logic, it would be better for you if your statements were logical, and didn't build up strawmen. God has been very helpful concerning growing in complexity. Ever since i became a believer it has been a wild ride, no doubt. I'll admit i've learned a lot from atheists. Concerning God and intelligence, due to everything i've observed (though i find it a bit unfortunate in its own way), it seems logic can neither prove nor disprove God's or a god's existence. Since i don't want to be limited to this, i have a goal to create an ontological argument that would refute that observation. But concerning us and the afterlife, it is uncertain whether either of us will be in heaven or hell if the world will be judged, especially since there is plenty of time for you to accept the faith. Concerning your statement on human fragility with little knowledge or reason, i will agree. After all, Jesus himself said not to listen to anyone who talks about that the messiah is here and that it is the end of the world. If they have had this knowledge, they wouldn't have been convinced. I don't think you can call a man with a mental disorder "ordinary." (I'll skip all the possibility statements; that is, those that ponder the possibility of an event being in a certain way, as what do they prove? Therefore that leaves me with the last statement.) Your last statement assumes God just watches or is impersonal or apathetic. For one, there are many missionaries out there inspired by God trying to convert people out of foolish mentalities. And two, even if those with some authority fall astray, that does not mean God won't do something about it—that is, they would not be able to avoid judgement; judgement can either be in this life or the afterlife. One thing to consider is that people tend to be "microwave people:" they want things done fast. Just because we do know doesn't mean God isn't involved. I've always found it interesting when unbelievers commit the fallacy naturalism of the gaps.

I've managed to pull off both. At first it was rotating to the left, but if i blur my focus and look at the feet, it starts rotating to the right. Does this mean i am capable of entering either mode at will? And does this mean i can mix both? (Questions not directed to anyone, as obviously the topic starter is no longer active.) The image helped provide some insight on how memory management in the brain works, as removing the image out of sight and bringing it back into sight does not change rotation. The image is very interesting.

I don't have experience in the kind of animation you require, but if you just need models for representation purposes only, then you may want to consider using models from the open source movies, like Elephant's Dream or Big Buck Bunny—both of these were made in Blender.

I'd call that bearing good fruit, even though, depending on the complaint, i'm not too fond of drama and those who are attention seekers (in this way). What would be their complaints then? I don't mind if complaints are just, peaceful and if things are done about it, but when complaints are for the sake of complaining, they lose their credibility and, if any, sympathy from me.

Using quotes would have been better, as i would not be forced to guess what part you are addressing. You may have to tell me where babies come from, as i am uncertain where you are going with this "cover up" thing. Since we are talking about Jesus's birth, what was there to cover up? What was devastating about it? I could start assuming things, but i'd rather get the full details first. Science, actually, doesn't contradict any of my faith—especially since a lot of scientific facts were in the Bible before scientists ever concluded them, and since it can't touch many areas of my faith, as it tries to remain in the natural realm alone. But then again, science has its theoretical side to it—so it has a fun side to it, where you can mess around and be creative, even though it still tries to limit itself to the natural realm alone in this area. But to respond to the rest of your statement: Even though i never said complexity implies design (nor do i adhere to such a thing), if God is the most complex thing in existence, then there is nothing more complex than Him, therefore there is nothing for there to have caused His existence, therefore God must have always existed. But to add to this, since i never said complexity implies design, i cannot see how you could have derived this whole part out of what i said. Concerning scientific logic, you'll have to expound on this matter, as you are implying that scientific logic says that everything has an origin. Truthfully, i'll agree with that, since science is limited to the natural realm and therefore implies God is this natural realm's origin. Concerning our inability to fully understand God (like the universe), i am uncertain what argument you say it doesn't back up, as i have introduced around 4 arguments, which i counted off, in my previous post, which you don't seem to have done away with. For this reason, it would have been better if you had used quotes. When you use someone else's opinion on a matter as a basis for your arguments, i cannot see how one can call that thinking for yourself or on your own. Also, calling my arguments lame doesn't do away with them, and i have provided premises to my conclusion, which if taken down, would also take down my conclusions. I am uncertain on what i did for you to conclude that i didn't use logic in any form for the sake of faith, but i haven't really seen any proof from you. Because it wasn't you i was addressing. I'll skip the rest, except for one of your statements, for that reason and because there's really nothing else to address. I will only take the time here to show where you implied that the universe is simple:

Blender and Wings3D are easy-to-use modeling programs (not sure about Wings3D, but Blender has a game engine). Wings3D makes it easier to model than Blender, but isn't as powerful as Blender and it's not that much harder to model in Blender. I've used Blender plenty of times, and have found it easier to learn than all of the commercial 3D modeling software out there.

The information can be found in the Xisto Readme. Other information that is also useful can be found in there. If you are unsure how to access the Xisto Readme outside of this topic or post, it is located at the top of the shoutbox in the red area.

It may be more beneficial to you if you praticed free thinking. Isn't that the "atheist" thing to do? Good, in that by saying there is sanity in numbers, your statement about believing what we believe in would cause us to be considered as mentally ill is false. Pregnancy before marriage wasn't what was frowned upon or condemned, it was sexual intercourse before marriage. Relevant verses: Deuteronomy 22:23-24; Matthew 1:18-21 The logic doesn't follow. For one, simplicity is too simple to output complexity. Secondly, you're implying the universe is simple—when we're still trying to understand it. How simple are we then! Thirdly, you're assuming God isn't complex (i.e. in order for God to exist in your case); we don't even fully understand the universe, how much less should we God? As a fourth, God can be "simple" while still having created the universe; the universe just has to be more simpler than Him, since creation cannot be better than Creator. Which makes us even more simpler than previously mentioned—how embarrassing for us. Therefore your logic doesn't follow; therefore God can certainly exist. Actually, consider this: God's "simplicity" will always be greater than anything else, therefore making Him complex by comparison. Therefore, even if He were to be "simple," you'd still be able to worship Him and call Him God on the basis of complexity (though it shouldn't really be limited to such a basis). I think even Paul from the New Testament addresses this in one of his letters. I've seen that logo before, though i don't think i've seen it used as an emblem like you seem to be using it as. I haven't read the book yet, but from what i heard it doesn't really prove much of anything. Perhaps you can prove what i've heard wrong (especially if Kobra500 really is taking ideas from that book—as it seems to proving what i've heard about the book). Then it would actually have some worth in buying, or at least looking up. Yes, even atheism, being a religion, gives some kind of meaning to life (even though it is as rewarding as subjectively possible)—as the part which you surround in quotes truthfully speaks. Though you say you try to enjoy life to the fullest, you have to admit that you really don't. Let me expound: In order to live life to the fullest, you have to be utterly selfish in everything you do, otherwise you'd be restricted, which means not living life to the fullest. Therefore, what of atheism in this case? It is self-contradicting in this case. So, even though atheism gives the moral "do what you want, for you only get one chance," you realize that any good morals contradict that moral. For if you at all take into consideration anything that others think, you aren't doing what you want, are you? Secondly, you imply that those who believe in an afterlife, who are in a "waiting room," cannot be inclined to do our best in building up society, humanity, etc. May i ask how you arrived at this conclusion? As i am always fond of seeing the logic behind it all.

Go with PHP. Since its syntax is derived from other languages, you'll find that, after learning PHP, learning other programming languages become easier (or at least that was the case with me). But if you're going to go into PHP, i recommend learning about object-oriented programming. This will help with other languages, like C++ and Java. Thanks to PHP, learning JavaScript, Python, C++, etc, has been easy for me; however, C++ required slightly more knowledge, as you have to keep track of everything for the sake of memory, since interpretted languages do their own memory management, while in C++ you don't get that convenience. Also, since PHP5, PHP has become more suitable for desktop applicaitons.

Here's something worth considering: Complaints are pointless if they bear no good fruit. There is more than one way to consider this; it deals with actions and words. The part concerning words is how to go about in complaining and whether one should be complaining altogether. The part about actions is, after properly complaining, how to go about in solving the problem which the complaint says exists. Consider also Proverbs 26:4-5 on how these relate to this.

Rather than have others change themselves for your own sake when there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, why not change the way you come towards the thing that annoys you? When you act against something that isn't wrong, you are in turn committing wrong as in attempting to change the minds of others by having them incline to your way of thinking when there is nothing wrong with the thing that annoys you. Don't appeal to emotion by declaring that what annoys you is within itself therefore wrong.You say it makes them sound preachy—as if it could be proven objectively as a whole. You say, "say what you want," but are they not saying what they want? You are contradicting yourself with reason 2. It obviously doesn't matter to them whether or not the readers of their posts are friends or not, and it shouldn't. Yet your conclusion implies that it should matter, as you attempt to speak for all. If merely having the words "dear friends" at the beginning of each post is enough to make you not want to take their words seriously, then i am inclined to say that the problem is not with the one that starts their posts with "dear friends." I find no valid reason to decrease another person's words in value just because it starts with "dear friends."

To add to this, near the top right there's a link called View New Posts, which is about as close as you can get to the latest posts section we had at the bottom of each page, if you haven't noticed it before.

I second this. I never liked them either; they always provided extra load that was unnecessary. Actually, i'll do myself a favor and tell Opera not to load anything from answers.com.