SeVeR

I believe in Sama!

Actually no, it wasn't. Many of the founding fathers were atheist or agnostic, and all of them agreed that America should not be an exclusively Christian nation. Christians in America have claimed the founding fathers as their own for obvious reasons. Once again, they are messing with history.

What logic do you base your !@#$%^&*umption on? I'm guessing you believe their is so much complexity and beauty in the world that their must be a God. But what level of beauty is sufficient to warrant it's creation by a God and why? Those questions cannot be answered, and as such your !@#$%^&*umption is wrong.

The problem isn't tasers, the problem is police officers who either: 1. Don't want to get their hands dirty with real police work, where they have to arrest someone using techniques that require physical force. 2. Are too eager to test out their new weapon. 3. Enjoy zapping people, in some cases several times, as you mention. As for any weapon there has to be regulations on it's proper use; regulations that are strictly enforced. The taser should not be an alternative to over-powering the offender physically. On my earlier point, if a drugged criminal dies from a taser hit (due to being drugged), then this is no reason to criticise tasers.

It's pathetic because no-one should be taught how to protest, or look for something to protest against in order to p!@#$%^&* a course. Protesting is something that is spontaneous and personal. It's like teaching people how to have sex. How many of these people had drugs in their system? How many had undetectable and extremely rare heart conditions that probably would have cut their lives short anyway? Fact is, if the risks were as serious as you say, then the police wouldn't be using tasers for fear of media and public retaliation. The number killed after being taserred must be a small fraction of one percent. Having said that, tasers shouldn't be used by lazy police officers who don't want to get their mits dirty.

!@#$%^&* yea, they could have pinned him down and farted in his face

To over-analyse 17th with a complete history, an outline for major changes that require huge amounts of man-power but which he will do nothing about, at least one analogy to make even the most hard-core conservatives go "ahh i see what you mean", plenty of regurgitated philosophical jargon... and all from a position of hippy self-righteousness. That's why.... or what. Umm, why?

That article is so one-sided.

What convinced me of the police being correct in this instance is the fact that when Kerry said "I will answer your question", the kid being arrested interrupted him. That being said, the police were pretty quick to jump in...

problems shmoblems

lol yea spot on larry

Actually i agree with you, it is relative. It's a pity you haven't read my other posts on this forum where i actually argue for moral relativity. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to insult people on this board. Especially when you do it from a position of complete ignorance.

This kind of talk is a symptom of post-9/11 patriotism. I'm not trying to defend anyone NBV, i'm trying to establish motive. Anyone who wants to stop the evil in this world has to understand the motive for that evil. I'll write a more detailed response when i have the time tomorrow.

I will give a more detailed response later, but first i must point you out on this. Iraq's use of biological and chemical weapons against their own people meant that they "had it coming" from their own people, not from us. Its a ridiculous comparison for you to make because by your logic any act of cruelty in the world warrants the US to step in and carpet-bomb the place in a hired-!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*in sort of way. In my more detailed response i will do!@#$%^&*ent the incursions, interventions, betrayals and !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inations perpetrated by the US in the Middle East since the second world war. America has fostered anti-americanism and hatred within the Middle East, and denying that fact is a primary objective of the American government. If you ask yourself "Why?" to that previous sentence then a reasonable amount of thought should make the answers rather clear. The American people elected that government and allowed the corruption to fester over the years. Surely you can see how the multi-national victims are because these people are working in, and therefore supporting, the US and their economic system. It also makes more of an international statement. The act shouldn't have happened, and is deplorable. However, dismissing them as terrorist religious-nuts who are psychopaths without any motive... is well exactly what the American government wants you to think.

Emo's have failed? So what's new?

The US did have it coming. It's amazing how some people on this topic interpret that as saying people deserve to die. Others, less re!@#$%^&*ed, may still consider that "un-patriotic". Is it any surprise to the Americans here that people call you brainwashed?

!@#$%^&* Yea! The magnetic poles will reverse at some point, although it won't be in 2012, more like 3000-4000 A.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal As for it being accompanied by an out-of-body experience, it's the first i heard of it, is there any evidence? Humans have survived geomagnetic reversals before, we should survive the next one.

He could have been an atheist who used religion, but the quotes don't immediately point to that.

Last night i had a dream where i was in a school being held hostage by a gunman. I was in this room with these two other people who were stupid enough to light up cigarettes and set off the fire-alarm accidently. Dunno what that means, maybe i hate smokers.

Yea back in the UK, and actually went to Bournemouth beach during the summer. Dreams are so !@#$%^&*ed up though. I think that when you're drunk in a dream, the dream appears all the more real because they're typically very "sketchy" experiences anyway.

Whatever Hitler's true intentions, he failed at being a Darwinist because he generated a threat to his own survival that led to his demise. So either he wasn't a Darwinist or he was and didn't understand Darwinism at all. Your choice Aileron. Germany's failure proved that anything Hitler believed about superiority was wrong (not that we needed WW2 to know that). So it's pretty hard to call Hitler a Darwinist unless you already believe Darwinism to be wrong and want to !@#$%^&*ociate it with someone regarded as evil... oh, hi Aileron! It's well known that Nietzsche's sister "filled in the blanks" in his final work with her anti-semitic gibberish after Nietsche went insane. He was far from an anti-semite. Hitler is an interesting one. Often cited by religionists as an atheist, he was probably a hard-core catholic: Hitler: "I got down on my knees and thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for th favour of having been permitted to live in such a time". (about WW1, Mein Kampf, 1914) Rudolf Hess: "I know Herr Hitler very well personally and am quite close to him. He has an unusually honourable character, full of profound kindness, is religious, a good catholic". (a letter to the Bavarian PM, 1920) Goerring: "Only a catholic could unite germany" (about Hitler) Hitler: "We are convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out" (speech, 1933) Hitler: "I shall remain a catholic forever" (to Gerhard Engel, 1941) Hitler: The first thing to do is to rescue Germany from the Jew who is ruining our country... We want to prevent our Germany from suffering, as Another did, the death upon the cross". (speech in Munich, 1923) Hitler: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loniliness, surrounded by his followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison". (speech, 1922) Global warming increase is only linear for the last 20 years. One can say for most exponential graphs that any small section looks linear. If we happen to look back any further it doesn't look linear. That's not to say linearity is any argument against global warming anyway, it's a pretty weak argument, in fact i can't see any argument. "Plenty of things increase linearly".... so? Speaking as a scientist i can tell you that most scientists believe global warming is man-made, simply because global warming is a scientific theory that requires a scientific understanding. I would guess it's in the region of 90% of scientists. If this is "some of the weaker minded scientists" then you're surely wrong. You probably believe what you're saying because you select your information from Christian/Right-Wing sources. The good thing about science is it factors in all the variables and makes an impartial decision. I'd already shown you how those sources deliberately deceive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm The above article published last month should be of interest to you.

Christianity is as Darwinistic in its temptations as any natural part of life. It provides us with supposed knowledge, safety, power, eternal life, moral goodness, community, and a path to perfection. It is everything our mind naturally desires, but it is ultimately pernicious, weakening, ignorant, susceptible to great evil, wasteful of life, and an acceptance of failure in the real world. It could be defined as a drug for the mind because once you have convinced yourself of the aforementioned benefits, they are simply too important to give up. We are naturally inclined to accept these benefits, religion is in our genes and defines a path of weakness. It is a test of will to refuse. That is why i despise religion as the perversion of nature. Unfortunately, people interpret this as atheism. They like to polarise based on the strength of my convictions. I am agnostic like yourself. I understand what you say about languages and religion: those that survive, like all things in life, are those with the most Darwinian characteristics. I think that's what you're saying, and it's why i wrote the first paragraph of this post. Christianity is a survivor. Through it's temptations the weak are drawn to it and give it strength, like a venus flytrap if you will. The weak will only overcome the strong if they become strong enough to do so. Strength in our society is education. Education has been declining in America for the last 50 years. Should the weak be allowed to conquer the strong in any other way? Would life be any better if we removed the men in power and opened the door for others? I think not, we must conquer them ourselves, we must prove we are stronger. It's an interesting point, and its why Iraq failed. We did not allow the Iraqis to defeat Saddam by themselves. Any force strong enough to defeat Saddam on the grounds of his sheer cruelty to the population would have brought lasting peace. This is also why charity is wrong (and a principle tenet of Christianity).

Woohooo awesome!! I am hated!

The Sun/Son word similarity is obviously not intentional. The astronomical representation of Christ as the Sun is clearly intentional, but the similarity of the words is merely coincidence. It may have been that the English word "Son" was based on "Sun" (or vice-versa) for this reason, but i doubt it. I think it's a little bit damaging to Zeitgeist to give the impression it may have done about any significance in word similarity. It's obvious that Jesus does represent the Sun, just the similarity of words is probably a coincidence. He may have existed, and when the Bible was written hundreds of years later, the myths were made up from the same astonomical markers that formed almost every religion prior to it. I mean, how much more obvious can you get than: Disciples: "Jesus, where will the next passover be when you are gone?" Jesus: "Behold, when ye are entered in the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water... follow him into the house where he entereth in" The next astronomical age is Aquarius, the symbol of which is a man holding a pitcher of water. He may have existed, and Zeitgeist never says he didn't, they instead provide the relevent evidence to say he probably didn't. Historians don't do!@#$%^&*ent Jesus. Josephus is a proven forgery; i know because i've researched it myself. The poor follow the rich because the rich have to tools to enslave the minds of the poor. There are enough stupid people in the world who blindly watch the news or who are ignorant to the economic situation we live in. The level of stupidity determines the level of enslavement; as in any system where the strong/rich dominate over the weak/poor. It's why i was so shocked when i arrived in America and had the displeasure of watching Fox News for the first time. There would be public outrage in the UK if we had a channel like that. Yes, 2012 is not a new age, and it's proposterous to think anything will happen in this year based on current knowledge and observation. Global warming skeptics are alot like religionists in their abuse of science. They take a scientific theory and use scientific words to make a point that sounds factual but which is designed to deceive. This links back to what i said earlier: The rich want to keep the oil industry going and will use the stupidity of the poor to spread lies and propaganda. They say things like "The CO2 is nearly all natural", "The Earth has been cooling and warming naturally for millenia", "The 22 year cycle of the Sun is causing the warming". 1. The CO2 is nearly all natural, but the greenhouse effect it creates is necessary for us not to be freezing to death right now. The albedo of the Earth tells us that the Earth should be about 60 degrees colder than it is now. The natural CO2 brings us up to livable conditions. None of this means the extra 3% of unnatural CO2 isn't causing a rise in temperatures that is significant enough to affect our environment. This is one example of the deceit of the skeptics. 2. The Earth has been warming and cooling gradually for millenia, but never at the rate it is warming now. 3. A recent study has proven the Sun is not responsible. Yet they use these arguments to convince alot of people that global warming is false, and i believe alot of the people who produce these arguments know exactly what they're doing. You did say "Just like not all bacteria is harmful to the human body, not all species are harmful to the planet", which is not "biosphere". It could mean both, i've just heard alot of people make the mistake. Also, many make the mistake of claiming we are harming our biosphere based on our conquering of the other species on the Earth, they seem to want to demote us to pre-Victorian farmers who live in harmony with nature. We are polluting the Earth, which is changing it's weather systems, which is detrimental to the health of various species on the planet, including ourselves. That's the extent of it. I know thats what you mean, sorry for the word confusion.