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/
Nothing good would come of stifling creativity. You're talking about banning a lot of creative work, and most likely destroying several industries; which would cause much, much more harm than it would be worth, even if we assume it would somehow increase everyone's productivity.
Plenty of people are happy with their toothbrushes, too. I know I am. Look, I don't give a shit about brands. If people like them they can buy them. I'm just saying I think Android is better, based on my own experiences. I do NOT care about Apple's business policy, their products just don't work for me. I also see just as many HTC phones as iPhones, though that's likely just locally. Either way, not the point of my debate. And if this is going to become some sort of fanboy argument, let me know now so I can avoid it, please.
It can pose risk to younger children, but once nerves are fully developed there's really no risk. 3D works by basically tricking our eyes with two images in order to simulate depth, and in theory I suppose it could change the way your occipital lobe develops to process the information. I'll use my own eye condition as an example; I have something called Refractive Amblyopia. I was born with a slightly defective lense in my left eye, resulting in blurry vision. My right eye, on the other hand, was/is in perfect condition. So, my brain pretty well adapted to give the right eye dominance while "deactivating" the left. At this point, my left eye is nearly useless, but my right eye has near perfect perception. This condition is reversible up until around the age of eight, so it seems appropriate that most warnings regarding 3D hazards point out children below the age of seven. From my own speculation, I'd guess that a simulation of images in that manner could have a similar effect on the brain, so it would adapt to the simulated 3D environment. If this change wasn't caught and corrected in those early years, it would become a permanent condition. Once again, this is just my own speculation drawn from my own experiences, and a more official scientific opinion should overshadow my own.
Never singled out iPhones, just Apple products I've seen in my own experience. I've simply had more trouble with Apple than I've ever had with Android. I did, however, own an iPod touch, and noticed how cheap the screen was, along with plenty of system crashes. I only dropped it maybe twice before the screen started popping out, while in comparison to my HTC phone, which my butterfingers have lost hold of a dozen times at least, which has zero damage. I've also seen iPads with lag issues just from dragging the screen before; completely new ones. But, in short, I have next to no experience with iPhones. Weren't they much, much more expensive that that at initial release, though? I seem to remember a new iPhone model costed around $600 at one time or another.
I prefer Android. Apple seems to limit the software it's devices can run to their own productions. A lack of Flash instantly kills it for me; it's a huge part of digital media. iTunes is also a big problem. I find it to be a slow and clunky program, and at one point all of my music was deleted. On top of that, Apple products are ridiculously expensive and far too poor of quality to justify it. I don't really care about brand names, but the stuff really just has to work, and I have had zero problems with my android phone thus far, while iTunes and the iPod touch made me suffer occasionally.
If you want a real debate, don't make the argument to your opinion into a negative comment meant to insult people of the other opinion. It's annoying to see people post these debates just to validate their preferences.
Stephen King is a great writer; I just believe he can be too morbid. His fantasy series, The Dark Tower, started off WONDERFULLY. I was drooling over the first 4 or 5 books of the 7 part series. But, near the end, there was nothing but death and destruction. I put the final book down halfway through, and haven't been able to continue more than a few pages each time I pick it up. Stephen King is a great writer, no doubt; But I find that his style really watered everything down in this case. What started off as a brilliant and exciting story, with a tinge of pain just to give some definition to the plot, evolved into this grey amorphous mess. It sapped the life out of the series for me, and looking at some of his other work I feel the same way.
If some kind of miracle contraception that disabled our sperm production without damaging anything or having lasting effect... Well, that would be extremely convenient. Not to mention accidental pregnancy would nearly disappear if both individuals used birth control AND physical contraception methods.
Come back to me when you've grown out of the immoral belief that an innocent person deserves an eternity of suffering.
It was the person's choice. God gave us free will. Chrisitans are not God's puppets we were not forced into beliving in God. Its a choice like every human being has. But since people want to choose their own way instead of God's way they suffer for what they choose. Its not God's fault that they choose it. Its was theirs.
Srom, I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, by choice. I was introduced, and revoked it. I also live in a house with running water, enough food that I can grab something from the pantry if I'm hungry, or even bored, power and a laptop, internet connection, two guitars, thousands in hardware, vehicles, etc, etc, etc. Yet a child in Africa, who possibly hasn't even been introduced to the religion, is suffering from starvation, with their family dying and having to make ends meet at ridiculously young ages. You're telling me it's their fault they're in a position like that, when I'm fine stuffing my fat arse and indulging myself as a proud atheist? How exactly does God's ranking system work, then? Because this goes completely over my head.
I wish there were some middle road to this debate. I, for one, am atheist, and somewhat anti-religious in general. Don't get me wrong - I have a certain degree of respect for religious individuals - but that changes the second they become radical or aggressive. That includes people from either side of the argument.
This debate, for example, was posted with a general tone of aggression towards us ignorant fools that deny Jesus. Not very impressive. I think anyone launching attacks like that must have a personal issue with the other "faction." However, you can't label every single atheist or Christian based on the actions of a few people. If you want to blame a group, blame the Hotheaded Idiots Coalition. Plenty of people willing to pick a fight for no good reason, not just because there's a difference in beliefs. An intelligent and self-respecting person wouldn't act like that. I'm an atheist, and I'm perfectly fine with Christianity in every day life. I don't get irritated until I'm insulted for my own beliefs, just because they don't coincide with yours. Nor do I care if there's a moral crossover, it's guaranteed that I'll stay out of your territory if you stay out of mine in that case.
The one thing I will STRONGLY disagree with is the older days with the religion. There's a big selection of ugly events in history to choose from, where religion itself caused a ridiculous amount of damage. Fortunately, almost nobody follows those old values any more. Unfortunately, these events, from the way I perceive them, completely falsify your religion. Not going to bash it, but that's just what I think. One of the greatest examples is the Salem Witch Trials, in which many persons used religion as a shield for their greed; resulting in roughly 20 people being hanged for witchcraft, due to silly accusations and people trying to cover their own arse. Documents here; http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/
My main concern with Christianity, and in regards to past occurrences such as these, is that people will always be able to twist the words of whatever gospel they fancy, and use it to justify their actions. However, religion definitely has it's place. It gives people support, hope, confidence, and meaning. It's something special - And like all things, it can be abused. I have met plenty of individuals who set a golden standard, and are quite devout. They don't judge other people, and they follow their own paths without interfering with anyone else's decision unless they have a very good reason for it.
Summary; Christianity is far from useless, but it isn't mandatory or verified by logic. It has been used for the justification and defense of selfish human beings before, and that will never stop. Nor is atheism pure and white. The absence of religion does not make any of us more intelligent, and by the end of things, we're just working with ideas and how they influence the human mind. That's it. We aren't verifying either side yet, and there's no point in squabbling, so just stick to your own devices if you can't handle the counter-arguments.
I think trying to regulate this is a significantly more damaging double-edged sword than online anonymity ever was. Administrators already have the right to remove comments on any of their pages, aren't they? This post is the first mention I've seen suggesting that they're unable to do so. In any case, forcing people to post under their name destroys privacy outright, and as mentioned above, has a chance to murder free speech on the internet. And if an anonymous user posts something harmful or offensive, doesn't that make it easier to depersonalize them and swat away their comment? I spend plenty of time online, and have had the chance to meet plenty of less-than-cultured people, but all I do in response to anything rude they have to say is laugh, or throw kindness in their face so they feel defeated. I think it would be a major step in the wrong direction to risk things like privacy and freedom of speech, just to make it a little more convenient to deal with insecure backyard bullies you've never even met in the flesh.
Unless they manage to preserve the skill and combat systems I love so much in Oblivion and Skyrim, I really don't see the point of an MMO. It wouldn't be the same game unless certain elements were preserved, and it seems like that would be difficult. And I was under the impression that another studio under the owners of Bethesda was taking reigns on the project?
This really misses the actual point of the debate. This post seems targeted to gamers entirely, and whether or not they want to be involved with an online version of the franchise, rather than to touch upon what they do in their own leisure.
Of course they're real teachers, it just differs in what they're teaching. Sure, they force you to use certain techniques, but only so you can understand the intricacies of what goes into a piece, so you can break it down to use in your own art. It doesn't stifle your creativity - it helps you to bolster it, or at the very least give you confidence. A good example is perspective art, using horizon and vanishing points. Learning styles and applying them in your own way is definitely creative, and I doubt art teachers would even exist if that weren't the case.
If what you're asking is whether or not the Salem Witch Trials were a real event in history, the answer is yes. There are multiple historical documents and archives with court orders and the like. I haven't poked around them much, but I've provided a web link below so you can take a look.
1. The term god refers to a worshiped being
2. A being that does not exist cannot be worshiped
3. Gods exist as long as worship exists
This argument is based on false logic. What perpetuates a worshipped body as being anything other than a concept? I can worship a giant mech that consumes nebulas in the farthest reaches of the galaxy. Its obviously not there just because someone believes it is.
Id like to know what your source is to dispute the validity of something like this. It's true that it can be argued whether or not MPD is a valid disorder, but as far as I know there hasn't been absolute proof to credit either end of the dispute. And I really have to ask - I hope I don't end up regretting this - but why do you seem to take it so personally in regards to the anger flare throughout your post?
Actually, the pig is natural. He's talking about taking insulin producing genes and inserting them into bacteria, which are then grown in vats and further modified to ensure safety. These bacteria then produce large amounts of insulin, which is used to save the lives of diabetics. Before DNA replacement was available, large amounts of pigs and cows had to be slaughtered in order to grind up the pancreas from any of the animals. Needless to say, the animals would not survive the procedure, and many users could develop allergies to this form of insulin. There is also a great risk in contracting diseases from the animal if the batch of insulin wasn't properly purified. Not only is DNA replacement a better and safer option for producing large, lower-cost amounts of insulin for diabetics, but it also completely side-steps the need to kill and waste livestock.
I'm an avid gamer, and I've seen plenty of blood and guts from games such as Prototype. I've never been in a real fist fight, I'm not even very assertive. I don't have violent dreams, and only violent thoughts when certain people REALLY provoke me. Considering how much virtual violence I've been exposed to, it won't make a noticeable difference regardless of how much time is spent exposed to it. What I will say could be a difference, however, is tolerance for formerly disgusting scenes. I have a feeling I have a much better chance of keeping myself composed from seeing someone get hit by a semi than a lot of people.
