right, so from an athiest perspective we origionate from a chemical reaction of some description ie the big bang. thus everything that effects us is a result of that reaction, everything causing our existance, our influences and as a result everything we do.that also means that everything we are going to do is going to be part of that reaction and since everything is caused by said reaction including our influences surely the future is already set or is always going to be an inevitable part of that reaction. so call it fate, call it destiny, what im really asking is. do you believe the future is set as result, or do you think we have choice (of course the idea  that we have choice would also be part of there action, i.e if you had the exact same knowlege and the exact same influences you would make the same choice) more of an interesting thought strain than a debate, but was just wondering what you thought

they meet in the desert and decided they didnt like each other. they have theyre normal equipment which they carry around with them, but nothing else

personally i think the pm could do with a pay cut. it sould be a duty and honor, not a career. plus with his salary, how many more teachers could he fit in his budget. if they did that to all politicians, how much could they save? now yes, we would have a lot of politicians leave because theyare money grabbing bar stools. but frankly do we want those politicians who are purely after the money? if i remember rightly the uk pm earns nearly 200,000+expenses (thats 10 teachers/police officers) and most other politicians earn 50,000+expenses which even if you only include the 645 constituencies and not the other roles thats 32.5 million even if you halfed all their saleries thats 16.25 million to spend elswere , which to give you arough idea thats 800 teachers or other jobsetc. now i know this isnt going to solve unemployment. but its a start. (and dont even get me started on how they spent and extra 50 mill on the olympic opening ceremony) but theres my rant, what do you think

people first speculated the earth was round roughly 500bc isaiah 40:22 was written roughly 800bc. discuss

based on the idea that they randomly met and got in a fight, thers no kryptonite around but superman hasntgot time to research who hes fighting.  

ok, lets be honest its realistically now between the two. while its not certain yet, it would take an amazing turn of events for tottenham to come back let alone chelsea. realistically i think its going to come down to who wins the match between them which city at home has got toput them in  good favor. but what do you think?

both hilarious, but which one is better theres only one way to find out...

i live in the uk where the drinking age is 18, however i was wondering what everyone thught about this and thefollowing points. - should the drinking age be lowered - is there a system that could be put in place for younger people - should the americans lower their drinking age to ours? be honest  and have a good debate!

now usually i would personally say the chocolate side however i was discussing it with some friends and they came up with the following arguments - if it wasn't chocolate the mcvitees side would be up, surely theyve just put chocolate on the bottom - you put the chocolate side down when you eat it your tongue can taste the chocolate but ive always maintained that if you put thm on a plate you put the chocolate side up so people can see there chocolate so im putting it on here so it can be settled one and for all

the question, simple the answer, unresolved the ulimate question: which is better and why