I know nothing about Roblox modding, if there even is any, but Minecraft has a HUGE selection of them to choose from, and you can do a LOT more with them. My two favourite mods are Tekkit and Thaumcraft 2 (Soon to be a part of tekkit/technic =D) and there are some benefits just from the publicity Minecraft gets on it's own.
On a side note, what the hell is wrong with everyone getting so angry about this debate? It's a game. A waste of time in the eyes of a productive society. If you bother to take it seriously enough as to use it as an ego booster or competition, rather than just enjoying it for what it is, you need get your head out of the sand.
The vast, VAST majority of the scientific community accepts the Big Bang theory as true.
From my experience, most quantum physicists also accept the Big Bang theory, they propose a different start to it though.
This is currently pseudo science, and is no more compelling than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I wasn't supporting the theory. In fact, I completely disagree with it. I was simply using it as an example to show the extreme degree of variety among scientists, and how the simplest of paradigm shifts can lead to drastically different theories. Somebody just took causality and pretended it was a biological organism; the logic could yet be considered valid, though, which is also why all yet-to-be-proven theories even as popular as the Big Bang should be taken with a grain of salt.
But we can apply the basic laws of logic to it. Via inductive reasoning, we can conclude that the universe required a cause.
I doubt that the answers to the mystery of the universe and it's creation can be deduced just from the logic process of humans. Quite simply, I think we need something much, much more concrete before accepting something as entirely true. This is not to detract from the value of theories like the Big Bang, but rather used with caution, and the fact that it is a theory should be kept in mind before declaring that we know how it all started.
But then that becomes wing and a prayer style thinking. If something is horribly improbable, it should not be considered the superior theory.
Allow me to clarify my statement a little with an example. Say our current universe is one of many, many different outcomes resulting from a sort of creation event. The laws of physics were determined at that point in several other possible outcomes, each of which produced a form of life with entirely different constructs, each individually with an absurdly low statistical likeliness such as ours. If the lifeforms in each outcome were capable of thought and logic the way we understand it, would they think the same way if they were the result? How can we determine the probability of life in a more general sense, or with different mechanics? We understand our universes laws of physics. If those are altered, what basis do we have to say life couldn't form even more easily, but in a different way? And how many different outcomes are there to examine? Are there an infinite number of outcomes, or just a few thousand? What percentage of these contain life at all? If it's something like 40%, for example, then it's entirely plausible for life to pop up, and why couldn't it have been ours? If I'm understanding the concept properly, then our existence can't marked with a percentile.
Yes, but this does not disprove objective morality.
No it doesn't. Actions have consequences, and thus judgments must be made. The consequence is objective, thus the action is objective. For example, the consequence of pregnancy is objective, thus the action of intercourse is objective. The same applies to morality. If the consequence of negative well being is objective, then the action of immorality must be objective.
How doesn't it disprove objective morality? The concept is that there are certain and specific right or wrong actions, correct? But like I said, these vary between cultures. In history, there have been sacrifices which were considered completely appropriate, for example. In the modern world, however, our morals are completely different regarding the subject, and mostly unified due to media and the like. Negativity and positivity are also human psychological constructs; Food good, no food bad. If someone gets screwed, they'll be angry about it and give the responsible party a hell of a time. But if said party gets away with it, they have a positive experience. Simply labelling everything as objective in no way suggests that there is a God, and Karma hasn't been verified as a law of nature.
I'm an avid gamer, and I've played and seen plenty of violent crap. It hasn't negatively affected my behaviour at all, as far as I know. I'm certainly not a violent person. So, as a simple argument from experience, I'd say that video games are not at all responsible for violent behaviour.
Why the hell is everyone getting so pissed off in this debate? It's a joke. Laugh at it, or figure out you don't fancy the humour and move on. It's pretty moronic to attack the guy. And come on, British accents are amazing.
And seriously, who cares? I thought we were finished with the whole Red Scare attitude?
But it isn't a conscious choice, dude. It's a primal part of the brain that makes either sex attractive. It's an organ function. I don't think many people choose to have kidney failure, after all. They just break sometimes.
Note; Yes, I just said homosexuality is a flaw... No hate, though! It just ruins the reproductive model in a sense of efficiency. You need one of each set of genitals to make a baby. =S
I think I'm a freak of nature in the sense that I can drink coffee every day for a few months, then go without it for the same amount of time without any negative effects. Sure, I end up being tired earlier in the day, but I'm returning to my normal schedule without caffeine rather than going into a deficit. Besides, coffee doesn't have any seriously ill effects for most people, unless you're using it to completely regulate your metabolism with 3 cups a day and your body ends up depending on it to function.
I haven't crashed from coffee a single time yet. Crashes occur when you overdose on caffeine, and if it can cause dehydration... Drink more water? If you have coffee, you have water, right? And apples don't have any caffeine, but I've heard the argument before. It's said that apples provide the same amount of energy. From my understanding, coffee doesn't actually provide much energy at all, but rather helps your body to process it and speed things up, so you use your natural stores faster.
I vote for coffee AND apples.
On a personal level, I find this site attractive based on even just the sales pitch. It's a place where I can share my thoughts in a free manner, and find some really interesting and thought provoking discussions. Any place where I can state my opinion and not get clubbed over the head is something of a sanctuary to me.
I also pride myself a bit in being open minded, and the "format" of the community here allows me to really consider the counter-argument, without any repercussions. It's a less judgemental atmosphere, the spit-filled religious battles aside. It's also quite fun to test my "battle prowess" under these sort of conditions.
While it's true that most atheists simply don't agree with the base difference in thought between the two "factions," that doesn't mean we have a problem with any religious person. It's absolutely true that I think the majority of religious arguments are illogical and completely inconclusive as far as evidence goes, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with religion. The only time I'll get furious with somebody is if they attempt to convert me, or interfere with what I believe based on their own beliefs. Otherwise, I'm friends with plenty of religious people, some of them extremely devout. It's when people start attacking each other on the site that problems arise and egos are bruised - and both sides have initiated at one point or another.
But the way I see it is that we have no reason to argue it at all until it interferes. Sure, I don't agree with the bible or the majority of the ethics surrounding it. But until someone makes an effort to convert me - And I see it as being up to the individual, not a component of the religious body - then there really isn't a problem.
People have tried plenty of times to convert me, as well, and I rip their damn heads off about it.
But it's all buddy-buddy until then, and I'm not going to let myself make judgements about the group as a whole. I just see Christians as a group of individuals following and interpreting a concept differently, so I don't see a need to try and break down the religion, but rather push away the ones who I think make bad examples. Waging war on the site isn't going to fix anything, even it seems respectable.
In the words of George Carlin, "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."
1. The cosmological argument. Recent science has shown us that the universe is likely to have began to exist. All that begins to exist has a cause. So we can deduce that the universe likely had a cause. Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless. It would also have to be powerful. And personal, as it must be spaceless and timeless. The only cause we know of that could meet those criteria is God.
This is only set as a theory, and hasn't been entirely accepted by the rest of the scientific community. Many quantum physicists have many, many different views on the subject, some believing that the universe is classified as a biological organism capable of reproduction. A more specific argument against the theory in question is that since we are part of a much larger system, we can't properly observe it as a whole, or even begin to understand it.
2. The teleological argument. The universe is fine tuned in such a way that if you were to change one number, life would be impossible. This either happened by physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity doesn't work, as the various constants of the universe are independent of the laws of nature. The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously. Leaving only design as an option.
Saying that it's improbable is something entirely different than confirming it as impossible. It still could have turned out that way to lead us here, and it's still possible that life could have taken another shape or form if the universe or laws of physics were changed.
3. Objective morality. There exists an objective morality . Evolution does not explain why we have moral values. The only explanation is that there exists a greater being that judges what is wrong and right. That very well could be God.
If you're using an element of human behaviour as an argument, the rest of it should be used as well. Morals can be drastically different in different societies, and have changed over time in equally drastic ways. This shows us that there really is no universal set of morals, especially in a practical sense. And, if God were able to determine something such as our morals, wouldn't he be making a lot of changes to optimize the model of the earth and get us to cooperate?
4. The resurrection of Jesus. Most historians now agree that there is evidence that the resurrection took place. This would mean we had a miracle. Jesus was a messiah claimant. The only explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead.
It could be verified that certain people attended, and that some event did take place, sure, but is there a video recording that shows him ascending? What suggests that a miracle occurred at all, rather than one person imagining something and pulling everybody along with them? There is far too little information to verify all of these, and not much to exclude certain variables when all we have are ancient documents or letters. If human society crumbles, and some alien finds an ancient copy of the Twilight book series, I really hope he doesn't take it as evidence that we were a race of sparkly vampires.
5. Personal experience. Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence.
In terms of personal belief, this is acceptable. But if it's solid evidence to prove the existence of God that you're shooting for, this is a useless statement. You have to completely eliminate several strong variables to completely validate it. What suggests that a portion of these people aren't batshit crazy? I know someone who's schizophrenic father would go out into his yard, naked, and start masturbating to God. If even one person's mind can be warped like that, you need to verify that every single one of these witnesses is entirely sane, and 100% unimaginative.
---------------------------------------
Thanks for posting this, by the way. Quite an interesting argument, and it's nice to see someone who's focused on what the site should be about, rather than a lot of the squabbling going on. And quite a challenge, even. =P
The issue here is about respect, not about validating either belief. It's almost become a war on this site, and people aren't recognizing that neither side is going to yield any time soon. It's a fight against two key components of the human mind; spirituality and logic processes. You won't win until you manage to rip those parts of the brain out of the opposition.
Furthermore, no one should even care what the other side thinks. There's no contest here. No, we should only care about a person's behaviour. Condemning, wishing death upon, etc. are things that really should be stopped, as they have a true effect on people. A person's base religion, or lack of one, however, shouldn't bother anybody. The problem is only going to be resolved when each side admits their contempt for the other to themselves, and then try to throw it away.
The human race isn't going to be assimilated into a single paradigm, so stop trying, damnit.
The issue here is about respect, not about validating either belief. It's almost become a war on this site, and people aren't recognizing that neither side is going to yield any time soon. It's a fight against two key components of the human mind; spirituality and logic processes. You won't win until you manage to rip those parts of the brain out of the opposition.
Furthermore, no one should even care what the other side thinks. There's no contest here. No, we should only care about a person's behaviour. Condemning, wishing death upon, etc. are things that really should be stopped, as they have a true effect on people. A person's base religion, or lack of one, however, shouldn't bother anybody. The problem is only going to be resolved when each side admits their contempt for the other to themselves, and then try to throw it away.
The human race isn't going to be assimilated into a single paradigm, so stop trying, damnit.
You suggested the world would be better off without that person. It seems pretty hard to misinterpret, but if I did, want to elaborate? Then I'll even LET you throw it in my face. And of course people have died by atheists, but what exactly do you think caused that aggression? I somehow doubt it was any sort of fervor, but reasons such as greed and rage - And no human is immune to either. So why don't you stop with the little insults and face the issue properly instead of beating around the bush? And instead of simply batting away my convictions, why not disprove them properly by putting even a small amount of effort into explaining it?
F#$&#xin;g hell, now it's gotten to the point where someone is actually thinking genocide? I don't see where the debate is, I just see a ridiculous statement made by some basket-case who has probably suffered sexual abuses of some sort. But, to entertain, I'm pretty sure males from other species on the planet would blatantly disagree, and I doubt that cloning was part of the schematic in human evolution.
Not only are you completely ignoring the fact that the Crusades or any other mass killings at the hands of various religious bodies have ever happened, but you're almost wishing death upon another human being simply for stating so, then you say that he's the one with an intense hate? How could that be any more ignorant or hypocritical, and what possible justification would you have to behave that way with little to no provocation?
I certainly wouldn't. We're not talking about a set moral value here, but rather a lack of one. Why sacrifice myself for a concept of nothingness? It just doesn't make any sense. And even though a lot of us atheists certainly can be asinine in regards to other people's beliefs, it doesn't really stretch any farther than a simple frustration with the key differences in thinking styles between theists and atheists. So, no, I don't think many of us except the most stubborn would die for a "cause" like this.
Macs are fast and easy to use, which is certainly better for a lot of people, but PCs are almost in a different category with the dynamics involved. There are custom builds out there that are absolute beast machines in comparison to Apple products. Aside from that, I find Apple to be overpriced for what they offer, especially with the way they try to limit what you do to their own software. Simple and easy to use, yes. But as far as power, cost/efficiency, and customizations go? PC's dominate.
Example of extreme computer customization: http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/
