SeVeR

What interests me is the Christian perspective on this. Would a Christian dominated government end up being no different than the Islamic examples we have in the middle east? Would homosexuals, pornography, sex before marriage and abortion be banned? How far would it go... what about short-skirts, rap music, goth-metal? Would atheists and muslims be shunned? Would immigration be drastically reduced? Would the wars continue?

2v2, non-squad based, i think we drew up the rules for this a while ago. Maybe we could put it on the league.nu site, people still seem to go there for leagues afterall. Having been inside 17th parallel for 7 years, i'm glad she's a lady and not a dude. -EDIT- Ah WTH am i posting for, i can't even play in it!

Yea, thats my real name btw (apart from the Neitzchesky bit). X'terr, lets rape an emo together.

dead.... *sniffles* An incident involving a high-powered blender, a sling-shot, and a vat of sulphuric acid. I'd rather not go into details.

Is playing football all the time a mental health disease? Football could be considered detrimental to academic endevours. People play football and play computer games because they ENJOY it. The only way to classify it as a disease is if the time spent on the activity is physically beyond your control. There are plenty of psychological reasons for computer game addiction though, and these should be covered in a counselling session; although at no time should the addiction be portrayed as wrong/damaging, only the reasons for the addiction should be covered in order for the addicted individual to understand him/herself.

If Christianity doesn't cause wars then you can't !@#$%^&*ociate Christianity with the scientific advancements that bring about war-time technological advancements. That's a rather simple point. The Crusades were not caused by the greed of European nobles. You are once again trying to give something that is !@#$%^&*ing to religion a non-religious edge (do you just make this stuff up?). The Crusades were initiated by the call for help from the Byzantine Empire to the Western Christians for help against the Muslims. In 1074, Pope Gregory VII called for the milites Christi ("soldiers of Christ") to go to the aid of the Byzantine Empire in the east. The Pope promised: "those who die in this endevour will get immediate remission of their sins". The Pope decided that Jerusalem should be captured aswell, a city that had nothing to do with the Byzantine Empire. The crusaders massacred Jews across Europe and the Holy lands, massacred Christians in Constantinople, and killed everyone in Jerusalem regardless of their religion. (source: wikipedia) I was with you up until the "loot books rather than silver and gold" as this is clearly a mistake. You really need evidence to support the claim that some of the Crusaders ignored gold and silver in favour of books. I think most historians woud subs!@#$%^&*ute "rather" with "aswell as". The books were the next objects of value once the gold and silver had been completely looted. It certainly does not prove the Crusaders were avid readers and enlightened folk. Not true, the ancient Greeks that came before Christianity developed science, philosophy and mathematics to a point of sophistication that was not equalled until about 500 years ago. The Church maintained a flat Earth for up to 1500 years after Eratosthenes had calculated it's cir!@#$%^&*ference. The Church maintained a geo-centric universe and !@#$%^&*ed scientists sayng otherwise as heretics. Galileo and Copernicus are two examples of those who suffered under the Church, and they were born well after the Crusades. Christians caring for the weak is not a direct ambition from Christians to further science, as we didn't understand immunities until a century ago. It can be argued that not allowing the weak to die has weakened our spieces by allowing the faulty genes to propagate. I'm not pretending to be an expert. In fact i'm asking why you think you're an expert based on the far-fetched claims within your post. Then sex before marriage extends our biological rules. If biology prevents us from reproducing until the age of 13, then Christianity extends that further. Whether that's a good thing is debatable. Sex can be a physical act only and doesn't require a commitment. I took that religion test and scored well on Satanist, but I had recently read the Satanic Bible and agreed with much of the anti-Christian rhetoric. I didn't agree with the mystical side. At the time i claimed not to be a Satanist (Ducky might be who you're thinking about, but i'm not sure). As for D&D, i've never played it in my life. I take issue with you labelling me a radical liberal. For one, i would gladly elect a republican for President if he knew how to fix the economy (Ron Paul). Secondly, i believe in an elitist society where voting is on a points based system with the educated, doctors, teachers and armed forces having more voting points than someone who is an unemployed idiot. This is very right wing. I deplore communism, value capitalism, am disgusted with over-taxation... i don't see any leftist routes. I am pro-choice because women should own their own bodies. I am anti-gun because i believe the legal gun-system in America is the primary source for criminals to obtain firearms. I am pro-environment, but I'm a scientist... so what would you expect? I don't think you can call me radical on anything. Astro: I'm agnostic. My vehement criticism of Christianity just leads many to assume atheist or satanist.

WTF Aileron, I've never played that in my life. I'm not a Satanist. I've never played D&D, You're an idiot. Wars are known to contribute to science. Your argument is that Christianity causes wars which in turn advance science. It's not a very good argument because nothing about Christianity directly advances science. For instance, those within the war who advance science may just as well be non-Christians trying to save their own !@#$%^&*es. If a plague infects every human on the planet and one human saves us all at the last minute with a scientific cure, then the plague doesn't deserve the credit for advancing science. It's also a terrible argument because it relies on the premise that Christianity causes wars, something i believe, but something that you'd have to agree with to carry on this argument. From the birth of popular Christianity (around 300 A.D. under Constantine) until around 1600 A.D. when Christianity began to decline, scientists did not enjoy the freedom to publish any ideas that may have conflicted with the Bible or the Christian view of the universe. Examples? How did this peace lead to advancement? In fact what examples do you have of scientific advancement during the crusades? All the things that Christians say we cannot do (sex before marriage, sodomy, pornography, homosexuality, abortion) and all the things its ever said we cannot do, or which result in punishment... is what i mean when i talk about a restriction of free will. If God gave us the ability to do all these things then why not do them? And where has God said we cannot do them? So they don't tell you to believe in God, forgive your enemies, accept Jesus, love your neighbour etc? Yes we are limited by our biology. How does religion overcome this limit? Religion is nothing more than a set of extra limitations on top of our biological ones... how am i wrong?

screw you... commie emo tranny noob

Haha, !@#$%^&* awaits apparently. Nightflame: If a God exists then he gave us the world, the laws of science, and the freedom of thought to investigate the wonders he has created for us. If a God exists then he values the ultimately objective gaze of science upon his creation, and acknowledges science as the greatest tool for understanding his marvel and glory. If a God exists then he would never have shown "wrath" or the emotional disdain shown in the Bible, for God would be timeless, unsurprised and unemotional. If a God exists then Christianity is the tool of all who object to the free will he has given us. If a God exists, then Christianity is the voice of those who want to tarnish his name with the bigotry of men. Christianity is the opposite of God, a creation of Lucifer, the bearer of light, the morning star, Jesus. If there is a !@#$%^&*, then it's far more likely that you'll be burning in it Nightflame. Your perception is narrow, ignorant and reliant on the words of few men with motives unclear.

Why would a Muslim terrorist visit the subspace political forum? I don't remember anyone talking about the Qur'an...

If America gets attacked again it will be because they haven't pulled out of the Middle East yet. All this fighting since 9/11 is clearly in the name of vengeance or "retaliation", but when it comes to explaining why they attack us, we hush up and dismiss them as crazy lunatics. Why exactly did the 9/11 attackers do what they did? It never really gets debated does it? I think it's clear: America has military bases dotted all over the Middle East, it's largely responsible for the creation of Israel, it's given Israel the weapons and money to wipe out thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians, it's fought two wars in Iraq, one war in afghanistan, has wiped out many thousand Iraqi civilians..... can we call their motive vengeance now, rather than craziness? If Iran and Israel go to war then no-one would support Iran. Iran is an islamic country, and in that sense they live in a strict religious society. I wouldn't call it an oppressive theocracy any more than i would any other islamic country. There are many islamic tribes and a great many jews who happily live in Iran. Their president is elected, and although approval must come from the religious leader, it's hard to deny the people when revolution is such a recent part of Iranian history.

WOo <3 Jesus, praise be to the saviour! Praise be to all white dudes with beards and supernatural powers!

Aw come on Jesus, let's make a deal. I'll renounce science if you kill your daddy. You could rule heaven and Earth, and i'll get to smoke pot with you in heaven whilst getting a massage from the virgin mary. Ya know, your mum is so hot Jesus, i would totally hit that. Maybe i'll be ya daddy in law someday huh? I guess that would make me God. How's about we forget the whole sodomy thing then?

I'd have to pick the Colussus of Rhodes or the Lighthouse of Alexandria (and the Alexandrian Library of course).

A completely unprovable and unsupported theory such as creationism doesn't belong in a science class anymore than stories about UFOs and aliens do. However if creationism was put into science classes it would have to go under the same scrutiny as evolution does. Thus it would be completely discreditted, and the kids might actually learn something about why creationism is complete rubbish.

BDwins, i see you haven't answered any of my questions or defended your position. I always capitalised 'I' when it stands alone? Do you really mean that in the past tense? In my posts on this board i only capitalise 'I' at the start of a sentence. However, it is supposed to be capitalised mid-sentence, and in the many do!@#$%^&*ents i have written, i write 'I' with the proper capitilisation. On the internet (emails and forum posts) it is generally accepted that one does not capitalise the letter 'I' mid sentence. BTW the word 'need' requires an 's' on the end of it; and as i said before, i don't think you want the past tense on capitalise. Before your ignorance hits you again, i'm English, and we spell 'capitalise' with an 's' and not a 'z'.

Lol yea, i'm curious BDwins, what made you think a majority of scientists think that? I'm really interested to know where you picked up that misinformation. I guess i'm 2 for 2 on Christians with bad spelling... and they say i stereotype... Although rootbear, most scientists say 4.5 billion years. The minimum possible age (lowest boundary condition) is 3.1 billion years.

Sil: Yes sil, that is absolutely correct. You misunderstand, i don't disagree with brain about atheists, i disagreed with his !@#$%^&*umption that the people who had posted in this thread are atheists. He was trying to label us with that correct, yet insulting, fact about atheists for the simple reason that we were criticising Christianity. Christians like to polarise debates to make those who disagree with them appear as the opposite extreme. No-one here had claimed to be an atheist, which is why he was wrong. But yes, i agree, anyone who says unequivocably that God does NOT exist cannot be a scientific person. BDwins: Are you serious? Maybe a few people who run Christian websites, and who call themselves scientists, will tell you the Earth is that young. Well in excess of 90% of the scientific community believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus 1%). Just type "how old is the earth" into google... or look somewhere other than "answersingenesis" for information that isn't doctored towards a Biblical answer. I see you didn't read my last post. Find the answer there. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. We should really be asking you this question though, i'm guessing your answer is 'No'? There is a fossil record. They aren't around today because our spieces has wiped out the lesser unevolved spieces'. That's how evolution works; we evolve to better survive, and thus we are stronger than those that don't evolve. We either kill them or they die out as a result of being marginalized by a stronger spieces. Again though, evolution is not scientific fact. It's just the best theory we have, given that no other supported theories exist. "God magicked it all into place" is not a supported theory.

Science is the acknowledgement of doubt and the analysis of probability; so it's impossible to be an extreme believer in science. If that "atheist kid" was a scientist then he wouldn't be !@#$%^&*erting truth onto unproven theories. In a way he has made science his religion, and in doing so he is no longer a scientist. It's just some argument i was having with brain. He made a comment about "all you atheists", and i pointed out that no-one on this thread had claimed to be an atheist (at least up until he made his post about it). It's pretty clear he was confusing atheist with agnostic in an attempt to make us all look like a bunch of presumptious idiots for !@#$%^&*erting that God categorically does not exist. No-one had made that !@#$%^&*umption and i consider the matter closed. I don't want to get this thread turned onto global warming but i must clear up a few of these points you've made; being a scientist myself. 1. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth is 6000 years old. There is plenty of evidence from radiometric dating to suggest the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Fossilisation for one requires much longer than 6000 years. Rock cross-sections, ice-cores, and even the remains of creatures long since extinct are evidence for an Earth more than 6000 years old. 2. The correlation between CO2 and temperature throughout all historical records is very close. The world has adapted to past changes, as these changes have taken place over millions of years. 3. What is worrying is the rate of the current changes. These changes also correlate well with CO2 levels. 4. Natural CO2 accounts for about 97% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. This is why we're not freezing to death right now, as the Earth would be about 60 degrees colder without it, based on calculations of the Earth's albedo. The extra CO2 is the problem as it upsets the equilibrium and adds a couple of degrees of heat to our environment, resulting in worsening weather conditions and rising sea levels. Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a publicist, and he doesn't represent the scientific community's view on global warming.

? ?

guten tag

I've researched the question and found the !@#$%^&*ing evidence i expected to find. I've amended my previous post with it. In fact this link: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html describes the supposed ark find far better than what i've pasted in above. There is evidence to suggest a flood, and given that, there is reason to suggest people may have built boats to escape it. However there is no evidence of a boat being built with technological ingenuity beyond that of the time. Thus, no evidence for God.

Yes, i'm reading it, and making it very clear where your !@#$%^&*umptions are being stated as facts. -EDIT- On the Noah thing. It's a little hard to understand what you're saying. Are you saying Noah built an ark which was too technologically advanced for this time? The following is an analysis of the boat-shaped object found at the Duprinar site: 1. The metal traces that were interpreted as iron brackets were actually goethite, a hydrated iron oxide. This mineral was thoroughly mixed with clay, calcite, quartz, and anthophyllite particles, and it showed a large amount of chemical variability across the sample. Neither of these properties would occur in smelted iron. The purported walls of the ark are limonite concentrations. Their boatlike shape is consistent with an eroded doubly plunging syncline. The stresses of such folding commonly cause fractures that cut across the layers. Water moving through these fractures would have produced the limonite concentrations that were interpreted as dividing walls. In short, the structure is consistent with the following geological history: Rocks formed when sediments eroded from nearby volcanic rocks and were compacted. These layers were folded into a doubly plunging syncline. A marine sea eroded a channel into the rocks and deposited fossiliferous limestone in it. The land was uplifted, and erosion removed most of the limestone and exposed the fold. A landslide carried blocks of rock and mud around the synclinal structure. This interpretation is consistent with the structure itself and with the surrounding geology (Collins and Fasold 1996). 2. No fossilized wood or traces of wood, reed, or elemental carbon were found !@#$%^&*ociated with the structure (Collins and Fasold 1996). 3. The Durupinar site is incompatible with the biblical account. Genesis 8:4-6 says the flood waters receded for two and a half months after the ark landed before other mountaintops became visible. The Durupinar site is almost 10,000 feet lower than the summit of nearby Agri Dagh. Agri Dagh would have been visible above water even before the ark landed (Standish and Standish 1999, 236). 4. The Bible describes a rectangular ark. Wyatt's ark is boat-shaped and about 50 percent wider than the dimensions given in the Bible (Standish and Standish 1999, 106, 230-231). Links: Collins, L. G. and D. F. Fasold, 1996. Bogus "Noah's Ark" from Turkey exposed as a common geologic structure. Journal of Geoscience Education 44(4): 439-444. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH503.html

AGAIN EVERY1 YOU ARE ALL PUTTING RELIGION AS AN EXPLANATION. AND AGAIN ILL ASK YOU WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE COME FROM? GOD? NO! IF SO WHERE DID GOD COME? THE WORLD HAS IT'S UNKNOWNS, AND THOSE UNKNOWNS ARE NOT AN EXCUSE TO CREATE A GOD FIGURE TO EXPLAIN THEM AWAY! DO YOU KNOW THE PROBABILITY OF THE PROPHECYS COMING TRUE WHEN THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PROPHECIES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS TO COME TRUE AND WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED IN THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT WAYS? That's better. Just to be clear, the cause of the universe is unknown. No scientist will tell you the universe was caused by a black-hole.

Hmm Picard's post needs a translation: I believe in GOD, through my faith I believe in God, and don't need a shred of evidence. I believe he IS and always WAS. I believe in the use of capital letters! I believe Jesus Christ was and is GOD in the flesh. I believe a man-god because that gives me an example of perfection to emulate, thus making the path of my life clear and rewarding. I believe HIS Holy Spirit is bred within everyone of us, I have no evidence to support his Holy Spirit being within us but i state it as a fact all the same. All i need is faith (ignorance of any evidence, logic and reason) and a God to have faith in (something that makes anything possible). that we HE gave us the choice to believe in HIM, though faith, I've read the Bible, and believe every word in it to be true. Even though it was written by men, they must have had GOD working through them. enabling us to feed HIS Spirit within us thereby allowing it go grow and help us grow. I like the idea of God being within me, it makes me feel good. I pray every morning, during the day, and before falling asleep... always have and I'm 49 years old now. I butt-kiss Gods !@#$%^&* because the Church has always told me i need to worship him. My Church has gold crucifixes and candlesticks... GOD is real, not because I say so, but because he is. GOD is real, not because i say so, but because i say so. Sad thing is so many just don't get it. And in the end it will be too late. I estimate that probably less than 10% of humanity 'truly' know God. I'm so special. I'm in the 10% of the population who are ever so special because we're close to God and closer to perfection. I'd hate it if the rest of you took away my thunder. Yes, that means that 90% of you are probably going to !@#$%^&* when the time comes. You're all going to !@#$%^&*, convert to my religion out of your fear! I'm going to heaven when i die, so i don't need to fear death anymore, isn't that convenient? But what do I know? Yes... what do i know? Of course, if I'm wrong big deal, we're all dead and gone, however if I'm right... where will that leave you? Here is my threat to you: Believe in my God or spend eternity in !@#$%^&*. Peace to all! Add fuel to the fire of ignorance, and !@#$%^&* us all to !@#$%^&* on Earth.