Messages

Scions breed like bunnies if they can populate a planet in thirty years. I've always laughed at that, but hey, we're talking Science Fiction here.lol

Well time in the universe isn't constant so if the Scions' solar system was in a place where time travelled faster, then a hundred years or more could have passed there whilst only thirty on Earth.... boy, this time stuff messed with your head.

The Bible contradicts itself a lot if taken literally, without an understanding of the nature of the books and their historical places.

The Bible sometimes seems to contradict itself sometimes, but most of the time it is either due to people's interpretations and other times translation issues.

Human supremacism. We are such vain creatures. This attitude is the main force behind the gradual destruction of our world, (or Gods creation if you like).
No doubt, just like God and heaven, a soul is something whose existence we are simply unable to find, prove or disprove and is thus just another clever defensive argument evolved over eons of theological discussion.
Humans are the only ones with souls! what a blind concept and convenient state of affairs that is!
Christianity has become a spiritual dead end, it has evolved to hide the truth and justify its followers willful ignorance of the things it claims to celebrate.

Humans are the ones with souls because we were created special to be God's friends. Christianity doesn't hide the truth at all, it is the truth.

This is one of the few places that i post where people actually can take things seriously, so id like your opinion on a few things. Just lemme know which one your responding to, you dont have to do all of them.

K ready?

1. Crime: In my opinion, we should up the punishment for crime, then there would be less of it. Like say get the death penalty a bit easier. If your intent was to kill, then you get it no matter what degree.  (not saying that specifically though). Or double the time in jail for various offenses.

2. Animal Treatment: This kind of goes along with top one, but in my opinion, even if you dont do it with other crimes, you should atleast up the punishment for Domestic Animal Cruelty. The thing is, although animals are not nearly as important as humans, they still feel the pain a human does. And for the most part, i think the animal has it worse than a human when someone is doing something to it. The human understands whats going on, the animal does not.

3. Beginning of the Universe: I cant remember who it was who said in the evolution thread that evolution was a proven fact (im not trying to pick you out or say your wrong or anything) and i said you shouldnt call it a fact.  Id like to bring that up again. 

This goes for BOTH ways the universe came into be and the people who believe it, evolutionist or creationist. No one should call these facts. Why? Because not everyone agrees with it. Sure saying some ultimate being who can do anything created the universe in 6 days including us and there is a single book that answers all the worlds problems is a bit far fetched, but so is saying our complex life forms came from a single cell by chance, and before that the whole universe was smaller than a needle head and exploded in less than a second into what we know today.   All im saying is, people should not call either versions a fact. Gravity is a fact. We revolve around the sun, thats a fact. Cheese is awesome, thats a fact. Its something for the most part everyone can agree too. Evolutionists can find proof of their version and Creationists can find proof of their version. Dont call either side a fact. THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE it.

I have decided to expand the issues, feel free to send me a PM for a request.

4. Gay Marriage: Whats your opinion on this subject? My opinion, they love each other like if not more than most Straight Couples, and atleast in the U.S. one of the main things is the Pursuit of Happiness and it does not really hurt anyone so i believe it should be allowed

5. Putting Humans Down: Cant think of any other way to say it (unrelated to animals). Injecting them with drugs to bring about their death, on the basis that they are in unbearable uncureable pain.
My opinion is also on this, yes. True, its kind of like suicide but let us say in the foreseeable future, there is no way to help that person. And every moment of their life would be in pain. And there is nothing they could do about it. IF that is true then i think you should be able to do that. BUT you must kind of work for it. As in like, get your family approval and a good amount of people whom inspect your case's approval. Those people being doctors of course.   

Hmmm...
1) Careful about increasing the punishment for crime. The punishment should be increased, I think, but not too much. I'm too tired to go into more detail.
2) Animal treatment... yes, I think we should be treating animals better. And yes, they are far less important than humans, though we should still be nice to them.
3) Evolution is indeed not a fact. It isn't even close. Genetics shows this. Those that claim genetics doesn't make sense until you think of it from an evolutionary perspective, how wrong you are. www.creation.com shows repeatedly again and again the way evolution fail to live up to standards.
4) Gay marriage. Aside from the fact that it is not in line with what the Bible says, remember that people aren't actually born gay. It is a state of mind that can result from any number of things. But why is homosexuality so bad? Consider the following:

Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation.
Homosexual teachers have been involved in 80% of recorded teacher-pupil sexual interactions.
Homosexuals have accounted for about half of all molestations among those who work with children.
You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree.
Most victims of sex murders die at the hands of a homosexual.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone hmm? (That sounds meaner than I intended, sorry.) Now, I'm not anti-homosexual. I'm anti-homosexuality. I'm against what they do, not what they are.

5) That's called euthanasia, or something like that. It is like suicide. People have indeed made miraculous recoveries in the past, and so I don't think it would be fair to put someone down. Our lives aren't our own to take. And others' lives aren't ours to take either.

Just to clarify: I never said it was my belief. I don't have a belief on this issue set in stone yet. I just wanted to see if I could argue it slash remember it.

Of course it's possible to disprove something people believe. The word "believe" implies that there's a lack of hard facts and therefore there must be a leap of faith to reach a conclusion. If someone finds facts that directly contradict a belief, and the person changes his view in light of the new evidence, then you have changed his belief. Or destroyed it, since with facts the new idea would not be "belief" but "knowledge".

And actually I would have to agree with that. Many conversions of beliefs happen all the time. And if 'believe' implies the lack of hard facts, I don't believe there is a God. I know there is a God.

But there does seem to be a need for a belief in morals -- we still get things like Utilitarianism and Hedonism and all those -isms that don't call for a belief in God.

People have been made with a conscience from God, that is why we see lawlessness as a bad thing. These -isms we get can only be opinions without God. Believing there is no God, people think of moral codes to go by without needing God. But the thing about these is that they are matters of opinion, rather than actual morals. It is what people believe is right and wrong, but the fact that there are so many different types of these moral codes shows that you can't have a set basis of morals, which means that people chose their own 'morals', making it no different from having no moral codes at all.
And before you point out the different forms of Christianity, I will first like to say that these come from adding on or taking off parts of the Bible's moral code. Not all the adding on is bad (but most if not all is unnecessary (grr I hate that word)), but the taking off is. Changing God's word is a bad idea. My point is that while Christianity has a set right and wrong, atheism doesn't.
Christianity's morals are set down by God. Atheism's are set down by people, and because their are many people, they have different ideas of right and wrong.
Reading back over my post it does seem a bit hard to follow, but I'm tired at the moment so you'll just have to put up with it.

But he could have. Follow this logic. IF what Jesus meant was that life on Earth was supposed to be heaven when the whole world was converted, then the disciples had a reason to travel and spread the Good News. Why DID they go out and evangalize, anyway? The Jews weren't big evangelicals. They didn't come from an evangelical tradition. The Epistles of Paul can thought of as letters trying to get people to convert to this new offshoot of Judaism. Paul was perhaps the best businessman ever, trying to sell his product, The Way, so that the world could become heaven.

Maybe he could have, but that would contradict other parts of the Bible. Besides, they still had a reason to spread the News. They couldn't let people go about their lives not even knowing that they could be saved. Think of it this way. If we know someone is in danger, and know of someone who can help them if they ask him (pretend we can't save them, which is what its like in the Bible's case), we will tell them about it and ask them to find the one who can help them.

It is less inaccurate than you think. Granted, we aren't talking about a "scientific" article, but still: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844

Yes I know it isn't always that inaccurate. Still, thought it was worthy of being pointed out.

The sky is not blue. Diffused sun light filtered by the atmosphere is perceived as blue, by human eyes.
Water is not wet. Your skin feels wet when it gets water on it.

Its tempting to respond to some of the other opinions here, but I am just going to return to my state of mild despair at just how easily young humans can be brainwashed into believing such total rubbish.

Just one little point, Its only humans who go to heaven/hell? Right? presumably all the other beings just get what I said we all do? Right?

Humans are the only ones with souls, therefore they (we) are the only beings that transfer into the spiritual realm after death.

What that definition of religion implies is that Christians believe in a heaven in the clouds with little angels flying around and everyone worshiping God for all eternity. If you look at Jesus' teachings, he emphasizes that the Kingdom of God is "at hand" -- implying that it's not about a heaven up in the clouds, but about life on Earth.

That's also not entirely true either -- Immanual Kant devised a moral system without the use of God. In fact,  Kantian morality is more strict in terms of behavior than Christian ethics in many several instances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

What I meant by what I said was that there was no basis for morality based upon atheism. It is well and truly possible to have an atheistic moral system, but it has no basis.
Oh, and pointing to wikipedia articles isn't the most accurate method. Many people have failed, or lost marks in, school tests, assignments etc. due to using wikipedia. It is a very inaccurate site.
And when Jesus said the Kingdom of God is at hand, he did not mean life on Earth was supposed to be heaven. Watched the news lately? The deformed world that we live in couldn't be classified as 'heaven' by any means. What Jesus meant could be that God's Kingdom is coming 'soon', that he was standing right in front of them, and he was the key to the Kingdom of God. It could be many other things than what you pointed out.

[Belief ≠ Idea or thought]

A belief is not wasted time to the believer. Telling a Christian that they may be wrong in their beliefs is almost an insult. You refute ideas and thoughts. You can't refute beliefs. This is because the believer is basing his/her argument on what he/she believes to be fact and has probably done so for a very long time.

Belief ≠ Idea or thought

There is a difference between telling someone, "I believe the storm will hit us." and "I think the storm will hit us."

And in my case, I base what I believe to be fact on the available evidence. And telling us we are wrong in our beliefs could be classified as an insult in some terms, but in many cases it is taken as an opportunity to witness to somone.

Yes, termites.  They are quite scary

But I was trying to point out that the more information you can provide about your system the easier it would be to locate the problem.  Currently you have given no clues so termites are as reasonable explanation to a windows computer freezing as anything else.

As to you saving often, please read this: http://fewalkthru.sequoyahcomputer.com/ You may need to scroll down to Problems with Saved Games.

Yes, yes, I've seen that. If I recall correctly, it says to have as few saved games as possible. I only ever have one saved game when playing through single player in Forgotten Enemies. Anyway, thank you for your help (or attempt at so with the lack of information I've given you).

To Darkplanet01:

A fusion reactor assembled itself and made our sun.  Seeing as how we did not yet make one of those but we have made a fighter jet I would assume it to be more complicated.  Sure, you can just say "god made the sun" but I could say "chaos made the sun" and we would both have the same amount of proof.  This does not make either of us right or wrong, it just distracts from the topic at hand.

Anyway, I propose that the christian moral system is actually more primitive then an atheists morals.  Let me explain before you stop reading or bring up the idea that any number of people you have or have not met posses morals.  The idea that you do good because someone will slap you on the wrist when you do not is a simpler version of the religious view, but it possesses a similar quality.  The need to have something looking over in order to prevent evil, or the idea that if nothing was going to punish you later then there would be no reason to ever do good.  The moral atheist, on the other hand, does good in order to do good, not because they expect the action to be reinforced or the opposite action to later be punished by some higher power.

The key distinction is you believe people to be naturally evil and will only do good when forced or otherwise coerced to.  I believe that people are naturally mild mannered and do good to do good.  Or did you mean something else when you said, "if there is no belief in God, then there is no need for a belief in morals"?


On a slightly different point, the problem that many have with organised religion is each one believing that it is solely right, and because it is right they have the duty to impose every doctrine on others.  This defies what you yourself have stated was the greatest gift of god, choice.  I will not provide specific examples to this because I believe that these words are simple enough on their own, but if you require a certain number please state that and I will provide as such.

Chaos does not make anything. What you have said didn't did not sway from the fact that design requires a designer. That is simple logic. If logic does not count as proof then nothing has any proof.
When i said without God there is no need to believe in morals, I meant that if there is no supreme being to define right and wrong, then right and wrong do not exist. Therefore, atheists cannot 'do good to do good' because there is no such thing as 'good'. And we do not do right because we believe someone will slap us on the wrist, we do right because we know God loves us and since we love him, we will try not to do anything that would displease him.
I do not believe people to be naturally evil. In the beginning of time, everything was perfect including people. But people, us, chose to do evil, misuse the gift of free will that God gave us.
As for religion believing they are solely right, we are simply choosing a belief system. Contradictory ideas can't both be true. If someone is charged with murdering someone at a bar, and they say they could not have because they were at home at the time, and someone else says they were not at home, they can't both be true. There is only one truth. And because the evidence supports creation, I'm going with that viewpoint.

Fear of dying is hard-wired into most concious beings.
Think about it differently, your evolving DNA sequence is %millions of years old, possibly more. The death you think of is no more than the ending of 1 little game run by that ancient DNA program. Before that game started, you were dead, once it is over you will be dead again. The ancient program may or may not continue, our body's know this, that is why (most) Parents will sacrifice themselves to save their children, their body's know what is most important, even if the concious mind does not. Life is in the body, the concious mind just a game it plays.

A Direct contradiction of most religions teachings. But an undeniable fact.

If the game never ended... what would we become?

This is not an undeniable fact.
1) If the Earth were millions of years old, there would be no land, as it would have all eroded away.
2) Life is not a computer game. Life is the existence of us on Earth.
3) Death is in fact simply the ending of our Earthly bodies and minds. The most important part of us, the soul, leaves and goes on to the next life. If you haven't accepted God's salvation... things aren't going to end well. If you have, you are in paradise for eternity.
4) Before that 'game' started, we were not 'dead', we had not been created yet. When we are dead our bodies and minds no longer function, but our soul transcends to the spiritual realm. The time before we were created, we did not exist, body, mind and soul. Death in Earthly terms is the inexistance of simply our mind and body.

If you slam the keyboard enough it becomes quite effective.  You could also bait the ai with a gorgon or one of the other stupidly strong things.  Or you could use it to take out undefended pools.  Or you could use a long range unit to take out the power then go in and wreck havok.  Get the idea?

Okay let me rephrase my question. Is it actually any use that something else isn't just as good at? BTW, normally there are enemy vehicles in the base and so taking out the power won't help all that much for a unit as weak as the wraith.