Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Erm... yes actually i do believe that you should but because you suck balls i will let you off for now.
I never heard about an armistice. I just remember the translators in Sweden blew donkey dick and were not able to explain what 'surrender' meant in American terms. They had believed we were going to go over there and destroy their entire culture and rape them into oblivion.
Like we're doing doing now in 45 other places? Including there? Oh wait.
Wow, that's a really powerful story. I suppose Sprinkz or one of the others will say something like he just made it up, or his rotting brain pieced together things like a dream, but either way, technically it's more evidence than there not being anything beyond death.
I guess it depends. As a christian, there are things I just don't do. If you mean live life to the fullest as in those who try out different things, than an atheist would win because he was nothing "holding him back" as the Bible in Christianity or other "holy" books of other religions does.
Look at this website:
http://newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=53
Here's the important part:
"An even stronger factor is the power of organized religion - any religion - or a sense of well-being.
Although their numbers were small, Jewish participants in the poll were the most likely of any group to say they are very happy. Protestants _ especially self-identified "born again" evangelicals _ also report a high rate of contentment.
Sixty percent of people who have recently attended worship services at a church, synagogue or mosque say they are very happy, compared to 46 percent of people who have not publicly worshiped and 44 percent who have no religious preferences."
I just guess it depends how you desribe "fullest."
QuoteNo. The mere possibility of a thing does not make it reasonable to believe it.
I know your view, you know mine, the continued circular arguments of this debate are largely irrelevant. I propose we suspend this debate until at least one of us is dead, then further discuss our experiences. (or (hopefully) lack there of)
this isn't cold hard scientific reasoning when we get to spiritual matters. Also, i don't want you to get me wrong here I'm not saying there isn't absolute oblivion after we die, in fact it's as reasonable explaination for any when it comes to life after death, it's just that I choose to beleve there might be something more.
Personally I'm content with oblivion 'cos eternal life in either heaven or hell scares me. Death should be the final release, but since it's technically impossible to prove that it is, other than first hand observation, then I think it's reasonable to consider 'something beyond'
Alright then, it's insane to belief you go after death. Show me evidence nothing happens. No evidence? then by your rules to believe it is insane...
Most religious people don't hate other religions for having slightly different opinions. For instance, if you were a Baptist you might want to switch to a slightly less homophobic sect of Christianity.
So you forfeit one interpretation of the bible, for another? Sounds like people are naturally unsatisfied with religion. It tells us we are wrong, evil, and horrible beasts; also, that our stay on earth is a punishment or a test. That is obviously insane.
not really that insane, we have no idea what happens when we die, I'm willing to entertain most thoeries
Most religious people don't hate other religions for having slightly different opinions. For instance, if you were a Baptist you might want to switch to a slightly less homophobic sect of Christianity.
Yes, and a religious person accepts their reality with god in it. an athiest accepts the world without. once again, your original question proves nothing
That's a over-generalization. Christians also have to accept the bible (which includes a ton of rules). All the atheist has to accept his as you put it, a world without God.
One is easier than the other.
And I'm over-generalizing? It's easier for some people to accept a world with god and the bible than not
<<<To start off, I'm not an atheist. People seem to have some notion that you need to support religion to believe in a supernatural being, which is ridiculous. Religion is completely unnecessary, for said "mindless sheep". No one needs religion to believe in a god, or to support any rules or ideals put forth by religions.>>>
Very true, I recently decided my own beliefs didn't conform to the christian religion I was baptised into.
An average christian child doesn't question? Are you mad? children are a constant fountain of questions, lol.
I hate the way people have the equation faith=lack of intelligence, in their brain. intelligent people can have a spiritual side too...
Yes, and a religious person accepts their reality with god in it. an athiest accepts the world without. once again, your original question proves nothing
You're trying to apply your opinion of fullness to others, which is ridiculous. Yes, religion is more restrictive about things like sex and stuff, but everybody prioritises things differently in their terms of 'fullness'.
Lets take your example and apply it to say, an unemployed person, and someone who works 90 hours a week and has a salary in treble figures. you could argue the unemployed guy can apprecite leisure and relaxation more, but the worker feels fullfilled despite his restrictive job because he enjoys his work
Well, in that case, I see your point. Obviously the average atheist will live a fuller life than the average Christian etc.Not really. Maybe from the PoV of an outsider, an atheist seems to live a fuller life. Christians may have restrictions, but the very nature of religion causes them to be satisfied with those limits. The majority of actual, practicing Christians don't really WANT to do what their religion doesn't permit. If they don't like the rules, they change religions. It's that simple.
Also keep in mind that an average atheist keep a moral code similar to that of an average Christian, sans God.
It really depends on the person. Some theists live crappy, miserable little lives, and some atheists live crappy, miserable little lives; and some theists do great works and are loved, and some atheists do great works and are loved. Neither lives better than the other simply because of what they believe- the only difference is that one believes something that is patently untrue, and the other does not.
You immediatly go the negative of christianity and its followers, and then asume everyone who is a christian is like that. Real intelligent.
I don't believe that the very religious are necessarily unintelligent. I've known some very religious people who were also very intelligent. Part of it is that people are essentially brainwashed into believing in their religion and that might be tough to overcome, even if you are very intelligent.
Do you think that St Augustine and the like were stupid?
So what you're trying to say is that it just shows less skills in logic and taking tests, doesn't actually show them being dumb? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself.
Dumber on which subjects? I'm a strong christian with a 113 IQ. Its not the greatest IQ, but its about 12 higher than normal and I suck at differernt subjects. That chart does depend on which subjects they were asking the people in the graph.
Just look into Christianity. I'm sure you'll put it down like you do with most beliefs and arguments, but seriously, talk with some scholars or preachers and, if you want, debate with them on subjects you think are false. Just look into it, even if it makes you even more ignorant towards it.
I frequently debate with those of the moronic persuasion [religion]. I've found that they are mentally handicapped.
As this graph states: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001527.html
Well you have a biased sample group here. i agree that the religiously extreme tend to be "mentally handicapped" there have been some extremely intelligent christians.
Just look into Christianity. I'm sure you'll put it down like you do with most beliefs and arguments, but seriously, talk with some scholars or preachers and, if you want, debate with them on subjects you think are false. Just look into it, even if it makes you even more ignorant towards it.
"The selfish gene" doesn't have anything to do with how people behave. It's about how some genes in our body help ensure that they get passed on and continue.
Hamilton's rule does not prove me wrong at all. It shows that being too co-operative is a bad thing, but it clearly actually shows that some co-operation is a good thing. Not only that, but Hamilton did his research in the 60s, while has Hauser and Pinker are doing their research now! Much has changed in evolutionary psychology over the last 40 years.
The prisoner's game is a hypothetical philosophical question. It's not science, so it can't prove anything wrong. It doesn't show that people are more or less likely to be co-operative in real life.
Not entirely. I'm actually accompanied by seventy-one virgins. Which reminds me, if you see Mohammed, could you tell him thanks for the women? And also, one of them has gone sour, and I'd like a replacement.
Except I be by SPrinkZ in the night, there is no music in the nightingale; unless I look on SPrinkZ in the day, there is no day for me to look upon; he is my essence, and I leave to be. If I be not by his fair influence--fostered, illumined, cherished, kept alive. I fly not death, to fly his deadly doom; tarry I here, I but attend on death. But, fly I hence, I fly away from life.
~D-Draw
QuoteWe're programmed to be selfish as to survive.
Source?
I'm not a communist or a communist sympathiser, but I do think there is a growing amount of evidence that actually co-operative humans are more likely to survive than non- co-operative humans. I think the work of people like Marc Hauser and Steven Pinker really push this idea forward.
