Re: General News/ Debate

by killerflood 2009-05-21, 22:55

This is where my little quote comes in! *smiles in glee*

"Nothing is impossible with time, time just hasn't caught up with our imaginations."

by **Darkwing** 2009-05-21, 23:32

Thingy wrote:maybe, but those werent really 100% atheistic, they probably just decided ''nah, he doesnt exist'' without any deep thinking. I've thought about it deep, and nothing is going to make me believe some guy who loves us, but created evil and suffering, is floating around somewhere looking at us.

@alka i didnt say i could. But you cant prove that there isnt another dimension where everyone is a living piece of candy and they all eat living hot dogs with their necks

the bottom line is, i'll respect that you believe in god and i wont try to convert you, you can try to convert me but you'll fail and yes, i cant prove that he doesnt exist, but i can say a whole bunch of nonsense and you cant prove it doesnt exist.

see, if you actually tell me what you believe, sure, i may not convert you over to God, that's not really my intention, and no human being can convert another, only God can, so all I can do is use myself as a vessel for God, I can't make you believe, even if I offer you cookies, but I can for the most part hold up my end of the argument to at least prove to some extent it's not just foolish hogwash. mind you i'm still more of an apprentice, so I'm not half as good at it as somebody like my dad who can REALLY make you think and question yourself, and then question your questioning!

by Stryker 2009-05-21, 23:45

Shemuel wrote:For a person without a soul.

Harsh...

@alka what is Pascal's wager?

@killerflood i also like a certain phrase from a show that i like. During Voyager, when the crew enters an anomaly, they ask "what is the origin of the anomaly?" and the computer responds "Insufficient data". This is also kinda like the religion debate. But to sum it ALL up "improbable"

by **Thingy** 2009-05-22, 00:40

Darkwing wrote:
Thingy wrote:maybe, but those werent really 100% atheistic, they probably just decided ''nah, he doesnt exist'' without any deep thinking. I've thought about it deep, and nothing is going to make me believe some guy who loves us, but created evil and suffering, is floating around somewhere looking at us.

@alka i didnt say i could. But you cant prove that there isnt another dimension where everyone is a living piece of candy and they all eat living hot dogs with their necks

the bottom line is, i'll respect that you believe in god and i wont try to convert you, you can try to convert me but you'll fail and yes, i cant prove that he doesnt exist, but i can say a whole bunch of nonsense and you cant prove it doesnt exist.

see, if you actually tell me what you believe, sure, i may not convert you over to God, that's not really my intention, and no human being can convert another, only God can, so all I can do is use myself as a vessel for God, I can't make you believe, even if I offer you cookies, but I can for the most part hold up my end of the argument to at least prove to some extent it's not just foolish hogwash. mind you i'm still more of an apprentice, so I'm not half as good at it as somebody like my dad who can REALLY make you think and question yourself, and then question your questioning!

Cookies?! why didnt you mention cookies!!!??!! I HAVE NEVER GOTTEN COOKIES FOR BEING AN ATHEIST!!

Kidding, kidding, but there's alot about christianity and the other major religions that doesnt make sense. I'm going to take one thing here. God being omnipotent, loving us and being all seeing.

So, if he loves us, why does he put us through a lifetime of pain and suffering? You can argue that he gave us free will, but isnt he all knowing? all knowing means you can see into the future, the past and, well, all times. EVERYTHING. That means he knew we'd screw up and start slaughtering eachother. And if you say you need pain to feel happyness, then why did god design us that way?

And another thing is hell, why does he send everyone who doesnt believe in him to hell? i mean, he designed us all, right? our lifes are in our genes. What i believe is in my genes, because my genes determined the way i would think. So, i'm going to hell because god designed me to go to hell? Isnt that the pure definition of evil? making someone suffer even if you know that his/her suffering wont make a difference at all?

by Philly Homer 2009-05-22, 16:29

Stryker wrote:@alka what is Pascal's wager?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

by Darkjedi 2009-05-28, 13:36

Here's some news...

http://digg.com/d1sGAJ

Go NZ!

Let Windows BURN!!!

BURN!!!!!!!!!1

Ahahahahhahaahah!!!!

by Shemuel 2009-05-28, 15:40

Ah, the cursory 1 at the end of an !!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8072159.stm
Well maybe my bills will change.

by Stryker 2009-05-28, 22:11

lol finally read alka's thing about pascal's wager... also read about alot of stuff related to that... There is alot of good reading on wikipedia. One quote that just tickled me to death is "Stephen F. Roberts' popular quotation:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

poor microsoft..

and hopefully the bills change for the better... not the worse. Although i HATE AOL. Crummy software...

by Roger Smith 2009-05-28, 22:31

Published: May 24, 2009
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea announced on Monday that it had successfully conducted its second nuclear test, defying international warnings and dramatically raising the stakes in a global effort to get the recalcitrant Communist state to give up its nuclear weapons program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/world/asia/25nuke.html

Well, they're at it again. They supposedly launched another underground test, which seems to be moderately successful. International response has of course been negative. But what can be done? More sanctions?

by Philly Homer 2009-05-28, 22:40

Economic action is all that can be done. If we do anything else, well, we all know North Korea has enough rockets to destroy Seoul, right?

by Earthdeath 2009-05-28, 22:44

They could just detonate a nuke high enough in the atmosphere and flood the Koreans in EM, so they wouldn't be able to launch the missiles.
But then there would be WW3 over who actually got to do it.

by Roger Smith 2009-05-28, 22:46

They're already so cut off from the outside world, the North Koreans, there's not much else than can be done. UN sanctions have become almost a punchline.

by Earthdeath 2009-05-28, 22:47

I could always just waltz in with a minigun.Wave that around, and they will do anything i say.

by Philly Homer 2009-05-28, 22:48

Since there's really nothing we can do, we have to wait for them to make the first move. If they attack first, then we can overwhelm them. The problem is that China will probably back them and North Korea has one of the most powerful armies in the world.

by Earthdeath 2009-05-28, 22:50

NUKE!
Always an option.Plus, we have something they don't.Spec ops with experience and half the world backing us

by **Thingy** 2009-05-29, 04:42

Earthdeath wrote:I could always just waltz in with a minigun.Wave that around, and they will do anything i say.

Yep. We got us the solution right here. Have fun ED, and bring me some of that north korean hide! i heard you can make good jackets out of north koreans

Alkanosis wrote:Since there's really nothing we can do, we have to wait for them to make the first move. If they attack first, then we can overwhelm them. The problem is that China will probably back them and North Korea has one of the most powerful armies in the world.

Meh, a good army? my arse, they have some of the crappiest technology possible, and a few US/NATO airstrikes would probably soften them up. There is a small US fleet nearby, and they cant do anything if their nuclear production facilitys have been bombed to hell

by Shemuel 2009-05-29, 08:24

China will not back them in a war if North Korea starts it first. They rely too much on western trade

by Philly Homer 2009-05-29, 17:41

Thingy wrote:Meh, a good army? my arse, they have some of the crappiest technology possible, and a few US/NATO airstrikes would probably soften them up. There is a small US fleet nearby, and they cant do anything if their nuclear production facilitys have been bombed to hell

Good army in numbers anyway. And why are you bashing the AK47 and it's variants?

But I suppose China backing North Korea is somewhat debatable. It's the issue of whether they want to protect communism or to trade with the rest of the world.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-29, 17:55

because you'd get better accuracy by throwing a rock at taipei 101 from the bottom of the mariana trench? Sure, it spews out alot of bullets but the problem is that none of them hits. And sure, they have massive numbers but a few napalm strikes and they're all gone, thanks to crappy AA technology

and my guess is, umm, surviving? they need food and other goods to survive, i mean, if the whole world invaded england, would the US stay out of it or fight the world? Plus the chinese dont want their kids playing around with nukes. Their kids being north korea and the rest of the commies

by Roger Smith 2009-05-29, 20:57

Supposedly North Korea has the fifth largest army in the world, at 1.1 million men.

My guess is that China would not back North Korea by any means. Though the North Korean/Chinese border is less contested and protected than the DMZ near the 38th parallel, the Chinese still don't care for any North Korean defectors, they don't want the trouble. China has seen the benefits reaped from opening up trading ports, and has seen the huge urban/commmercial development in Hong Kong. Besides, Chinese communism does not even rest on the same principles as Kim Jong-Il's. North Korea is the last remaining Stalinist Communist country.

by Philly Homer 2009-05-29, 21:01

Truth there. But I'm guessing North Korea really is only surviving at this point because China is sending aid. If China decides to cut off its aid, well, one less headache for the rest of the world, I suppose.

by Roger Smith 2009-05-29, 21:41

Yes. Other countries have offered aid, even the US has, but the proud Kim Jong-Il has refused it, even turning away Doctors Without Borders and other international humanitarian organizations.

by **Thingy** 2009-06-09, 13:35

NATO planes were seen and heard flying through the luleå sky on monday the 8th of june. The excercise is to be held in luleå with sweden as the host. 50 planes from 10 nations (Sweden, USA, Italy, Poland, Finland, Norweig, UK, Portugal, Germany and Turkey) and the british aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious will take part in the excercise. The main base will be in luleå but Bodø (Norway) Oulu (Finland) and Rammstein (Germany.) will also be used in the excericse. Here's the english article for it on MIL.se http://mil.se/en/About-the-Armed-Forces/Exercises/Loyal-Arrow-20092/

Also, i'd like to remind you that all news and debates are to be held here. No matter how big they are or where you started the debate, post the news here and move the debate here before you kill another thread.

by Earthdeath 2009-06-11, 21:06

Oh, this again...
We were trying to guess who would "Friendly Fire" first.

by **Thingy** 2009-06-12, 05:06

The americans. it's that simple, they cant fire a single shot or missile without hitting a friendly. it's like their guns had friendly seeking bullets or something

by Philly Homer 2009-06-12, 10:55

You can keep your derogatory comments to yourself.

by **Thingy** 2009-06-12, 12:04

It's a fact, the US always takes the prize when it comes to friendly fire. especially compared to the other countrys at the excercise

it's like a curse or something.