(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		06-01-24 11:32 PM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-21-06 04:01 AM, in POST LAYOUT THREAD: Post your Fyxe-ripoff layouts HERE Link
Ok, cool, I'll have a second version of my original idea at some point in the future, then.

Since you mention that you intend to refine the program, might I suggest that you first deal with the menus? Like, the color choice menus, I mean (because I don't know the technical term for them). They seem to open and close and scroll and stuff very erratically, and it gets annoying. Of course, I have no idea how easy or difficult such a change would be as far as programming it, so just take it as the uninformed advice of a neophyte user.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-21-06 06:32 PM, in POST LAYOUT THREAD: Post your Fyxe-ripoff layouts HERE Link
Ok, I have what I think is a more-or-less final version of what I ultimately want, but there is still one more question.

Originally posted by Example
Sample quote, with link.
The color scheme is obviously redone, and I feel like this time it is at least more complementary because I found the textures in a location that paired them together intentionally (because I am colorblind and could not trust myself to match up two colors on my own). However, the source also provided an accent image that is to be used to create a border. I would like to use such a border to outline the main box in my layout, but the problem is twofold.

1. First, I was dumb and closed out of the editor proper, and I don't want to go back and re-create the entire thing just so that I am able to use an image instead of a line to outline the box. Which fields could I edit within the header code in order to incorporate that image as a border?

2. The image takes the form of a single square that is intended to be tiled, rather than just a straight line. As I've noticed, the purpose is to create a single large box with this border image, and then inset it with a box of smaller dimensions that uses the actual background color, so that only the edges of the border image peek out on the sides and create the illusion of just a straight border. How can I translate this concern into something that can be used in my layout? If you don't quite get my explanation, let me know and I'll try to draw it out.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-22-06 08:33 PM, in POST LAYOUT THREAD: Post your Fyxe-ripoff layouts HERE Link
The advice is appreciated, of course, but...just posting so you can see what that code does.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-22-06 09:31 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Even if he did'nt make us act the way we did, he made us knowing that we'd behave that way, which in my books would be the equivalent of setting a wild animal loose on the freeway knowing it'd just get run over. If you have to juggle logic around and come up with some odd justification, does'nt that bode ill for the concept of god? Where in the bible is this logical gymnastics located? What else could justify it?

also

OK, so how can you say he wants us to have faith in him or that he gave us free will if you also think he is so illogical and incomprehensible that we cant know what he's thinking?
The issue here is that you continue to understand God as if He adheres to the same rules and the same logic that define humanity. I recently read a review/rebuttal of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, and one point that the review's author made was especially brilliant and especially pertinent to this particular discussion:

"Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms."

What it comes down to is, you perceive God as if He is just some supersized person. That is, He is great and big and huge and powerful, but He still has the mind of a man (or a "chap," as the British (or Irish?) author wrote). The analogy presented - the one that speaks of Tony Blair as an octopus - sums it up: you assume that God is similar to humanity and then wonder why His logic is apparently so far removed from human logic, but your initial assumption is flawed and so nullifies the entire statement.

Originally posted by Jomb
But all those corrupt people and all those evil people got away with it only because of their ability to hi-jack a religion. Take away the religion and you've taken away their greatest tool. Many of those historical tragedies may have played out differently or not happened at all. That all this stuff happened so readily in the past makes it clear that it's going to keep happening over and over again. Even if the people responsible are not true believers (though many of them claimed to be, and who are we to say they were'nt?), they acted under the guise of religion.
Science and technology have inflicted just as many, if not more, atrocities as religion has. The nuclear bomb, chemical weapons - hell, even just swords and guns - are all products of science. Scientific progress is a great thing, and it is overwhelmingly used for good, but in order to destroy its capacity to create bad, you would need to destroy science totally - would it be worth the loss?

Originally posted by Jomb
That is god under the most generic and loosely defined terms, but no religion I'm aware of keeps it that simple. They all have much greater detail in what god is, how many gods there are, where god is located, what he looks like, gender, things he's done, etc. Many of these details can be completely and thoroughly disproved. This calls the whole religion into question in my book, because when something is presented as the complete and infallible word of god, then some of it is conclusively shown to be lies, that makes the whole thing very suspicious at the very least.
Would you care to provide a specific example of which of God's attributes can be "completely and thoroughly disproved"?

Originally posted by Jomb
Much of what people consider religion is actually culture, I'd even go so far as to say that all of religion is simply culture, and we are basically brainwashed into the culture we are born with. For example, I celebrate christmas simply because it's a custom in the US, not because of religious fervor. Maybe a better example is hair. Arm pit hair. When i see a woman with arm pit hair, i'm not the slightest bit attracted by it, actually kinda repulsed. But why would that be? It's perfectly natural... But in my culture its considered ugly and i'm a product of my culture in this sense. There are other cultures that see it differently, and even though I think they are wrong in my heart, logically I know that they are probably right because it actually is natural. Though some people will go against their culture, those people are exceedingly rare. And before you say that it makes no sense then for me to be an atheist (or agnostic if like), because the US is christian... actually it makes lots of sense because our country has 2 dueling identities based on the people who founded it. You have the puritans tradition (christians) and the democratic tradition (old world free-thinkers getting ideas from places like ancient greece) together though they are very commonly at odds with each other.
Religion and culture are absolutey intertwined, but I think you are wrong when you identically equate the two. And I also think you are incorrect in stating that it is "normal" for you to be an atheist because of our country's history - even those "old world free-thinkers" were overwhelmingly religious, or at least religiously affiliated, if only because atheism was so uncommon (and perhaps even taboo) at that point in time. Your atheism does not stem from some great tradition of atheism in America, but from a personal dissatisfaction with religion for whatever reason; you are proof that upbringing cannot be generalized to explain every person's religious opinions. Likewise, I am myself very religious, and my parents raised me that way, but both my older and my younger brother have stopped attending church and are not very religiously-inclined at all. And you can bet that they were brought up alongside and identical to me.

Edit for a missing parenthesis.
Edit again to correct an apostrophe.

(edited by Silvershield on 10-22-06 08:38 PM)
(edited by Silvershield on 10-22-06 08:45 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-22-06 10:59 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
My point is this - If god adheres to our logic and makes sense then there are too many logical inconsistancies for him to be real. But, if god does not follow our logic and cant be known, then all religions are wrong because god is incomprehensible and they claim to comprehend.
First of all, your second sentence is inaccurate: I say that God does not follow our logic, but I do not say that He cannot be known (at least not in the sense that He cannot be known of - whether He can be intricately understood, though, is a different story.) I don't see why I cannot understand that God exists without understanding how he works. Christians believe that God revealed Himself to us - that is, revealed His existance and His will to us - but not that He revealed how He works or thinks.

Originally posted by Jomb
Got to disagree here on many points. First off, science is the only reason there are 6 billion people here on earth, because through things like medicine and modern agricultural techniques, more people live longer and have food to eat, to the tune of billions of people. No nuclear war or scientific catastrophe has caused a death toll anywhere near that figure. Additionally, science has made life much much easier for us to live (try living wild in the woods with only stone tools for awhile and you'll appreciate this). Without science we simply could'nt exist like we are now. Religion has been the motivation for some good charity works, but I'm not convinced it outweighs the times that it's been used to mistreat or murder people of different ethnicities. Additionally, the world could go on with very little difference without religion. We'd all still live basically as we do right now.
Who are you to make the unilateral judgement that all of science's benefits have made up for its faults? And, likewise, that all of religion's benefits have not made up for its faults? You speak as if religion plays only a minimal part as far as creating good in the world, at least in relation to the bad that it does, but can you not consider every single good deed, both great and small, that has ever been done in the name of religion? Every single sick person who has been cared for, every single starving person who has been fed, every single oppressed person who has been defended, all because of religion? You can't easily quantify that.

Originally posted by Jomb
where to begin... I'll use only christian examples since you are christian, but the same sort of problems come up with any religion i know of. Garden of Eden - There is a talking snake, we know snakes lack vocal cords or the capacity for speech. There are only 2 humans, one male and one female, this is not a viable breeding population and could not survive in the long run. It is claimed that the world was created as we see it now in about 1 week, we know this to be not possible and out of touch with the facts. It also sets the age of the earth to be much younger than we now know it to be. When Noah supposedly saved all the animals from the earth being completely submerged in water, he is missing many types of animals which we know exist today, but they do exist so obviously such a thing never happened, or are we to assume he sailed literally around the world and collected all these animals in a wooden man-powered vessel and somehow fit them all in the boat and did it quick enough to prevent their drowning? Man was said to be created in the image of god, but we now know that man has changed form over time, so does that make gods form something like a homo habilus and we evolved past god? Somehow I dont think that is what the bible had in mind.
A great deal of the Bible is metaphor and/or parable.

Originally posted by Jomb
Being religious and being religiously affiliated are 2 very different things. On paper one would think I was a christian because my grandmother is and had me baptised in her church. Most of the founding fathers were more strongly free-thinkers than christians. Many had serious doubts or were out-right agnostics. The ideas they expressed (freedom and intellectual curiosity) go against the church in many ways, and in fact many of them came to america to escape a repressive church. Culture isn't just about your parents, its about your society as a whole, and here in america we have always been an uneasy mix of strictly obedient puritans and wild (sometimes even violent, such as in the revolutionary war) free-minded people. The basis of the democracy we love so much is not christian, its greek, they worshipped zeus, hera, poseiden, etc. but what they worshipped was not as important as the concepts they came up with.
First, you say yourself that those early Americans were agnostic, not atheist; in that sense, we "might" have a tradition of agnosticism, but I can't imagine that we have any sort of long-standing, prominent tradition of atheism. At least not to such an extent that a great deal of people would be influenced to atheistic beliefs by it. On the contrary, most American atheists come to their beliefs because of exasperation with religion, as some sort of rebellion, or for many other reasons, but I would strongly doubt that many say, "Hey, America has long been renowned as a great force for large-scale atheism, I think I'll join the club."

That said, the point remains that there is no reliable way to "predict" the faith a person will follow. As I've said, my brothers and I were all raised in the same way, all grew up in the same country, but we all have different beliefs. On a large scale, people might tend towards the religion that is most prevalent around them, but I am speaking of individuals.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-22-06 11:47 PM, in North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? Link
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
Unfortunately I'm more inclined to engage more than three brain cells when it comes to international issues.
Of course, personal insults are absolutely justified, especially since the person to whom they are directed has yet to make a single personal remark at your or anyone else, as far as I can see.

Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
I don't often do this, but you have simply lost.


---------------
Now, I won't pretend that I know all about international politics, because I honestly have not taken International Relations 101, but do you guys argue that Koryo is so off-base and incorrect because morality has no place in politics? I don't ask that in a condescending or a sarcastic way, but because I am earnestly interested about what sort of stance is normally taken on that idea. Would Koryo's idealistic proposals be ineffective because he is presenting them in a manner that would be simply ineffective in reality, or because no sort of international political actions are taken in the name of ideal morality, but only in the name of practicality?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-27-06 05:13 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
I'm but one man I actually believe that much of science has caused problems (with the environment, etc.), but it seems clear as day that we simply could'nt exist as we do now without science. In the case of science its very tangible and easy to see, I would think. In the case of religion its very intangible, who's to say that the people currently doing good works would not simply have done the same good works without religion because they are fundamentally good people? On the other side of the coin you could argue that the bad things may have happened anyway and would have simply used a different excuse.
Then, of course, you can ignore science for the moment and just refer to politics. Hasn't politics caused immeasurable harm throughout history? Yet, nobody would suggest that all of the world's governments should be abolished or anything like that. One reason being, government's intent is to organize people for their greater good, but individuals who gain power through government can twist that; likewise, individuals who gain power through religion are what cause the harm normally attributed to religion itself.

Originally posted by Jomb
I dont think people would be fundamentally different if they never had religion in their lives, I say this because I'm not fundamentally different without it. But i know for a fact that our lives would be very different without science, its much sketchier with religion.
How do you know you are not fundamentally different without religion? Obviously, you know how you are as a non-religious person, but you don't know how your personality, lifestyle, behavior, etc would change if you were religious.

Originally posted by Jomb
right, thats exactly what I believe about the bible to. Many christians do not believe this though. But then it comes down to wondering which parts are metaphors and which are not. If you read the bible without any preconceived ideas about it being fact or fiction, it comes off similar to the mythologies of other religions. This is why I consider it to be mythology. How can we say any given part of it is fact while other parts are fiction? I'm unaware of any part of the bible outlining which parts are actuall facts versus which parts are fables. Do we assume the whole thing is absolute truth as put forth by the word of god? Or do we accept that its not literally true and is more about the life lessons within the mythology? Once you accept that some of it is not literally true, that makes the rest of it suspicious when taken as literal truth.
There is no recourse in this case except to outright declare that those Christians who take the Bible as word-for-word, literal truth are wrong. But I don't see how it is necessary or logical to assume that: just because parts of the book take the form of allegory rather than literal narrative, the remainder of the book must follow suit. There is no reason whatsoever to draw that conclusion.

Originally posted by Jomb
I've never considered myself as joining a historical club of american atheists. But there clearly is a strong history of free-thinking within the founding fathers of our country. It is from a stance of being a free-thinking man that i've come to my Atheism. By your definition though, I'm actually Agnostic, like most Atheists, probably including some of the founding fathers. Washington was a free-mason and took part in ceremonies worshipping the goddess. Much of the layout of our capital was based on free-mason principles. Our founding fathers were not fundamentalist christians by any stretch of the imagination.
I take issue with the fact that atheists and agnostics are continually drawn as "free thinkers" while religious people are contrasted and thus implied to be "non-free thinkers." We've addressed this before: having a specific philosophical belief does not automatically make you a free thinker, nor does having a different belief make you some sort of sheep. Many of the world's greatest philosophical minds were/are religious - many of them were/are Christian, in fact - and I don't understand how you can presume that they are not "free thinkers." Likewise, even the typical Christian person in the Western world today is not just blindly following religion; most people rationally and specifically assess their beliefs. They are all free thinkers.

Originally posted by Jomb
Actually there is a very reliable, though not 100% accurate way of predicting religion. That is, predict it based on the religions in the area the person is from. Just because something is only 99.5% or more accurate and not absolutely 100% accurate in every case does not invalidate it.
I am from a town called Emerson, New Jersey. By a rough estimate, 75% of the people from my town are religious. My brothers are also from Emerson, New Jersey. Of the three of us (my brothers and I), I am religious, and they are not. That is, 66% of the children in my family are non-religious, while 33% are. And we all come from the same place. The numbers are a near-inverse of what they "should" be. That's not "99.5% accuracy."

The fact remains, you are placing all the responsibility for a person's religious beliefs on their upbringing and their environment. As I've been saying, while I will not deny for a second that those factors play a major role, they are hardly the end-all. Innumerable personal factors determine what faith a person will follow, and you are wrong to simplify it to a simple case of blind devotion to a specific religion just because a person's parents belong to that religion. Just as often, a person is introduced and indoctrinated to a religion by his parents, but ultimately comes to rationalize and accept that faith on his own terms and of his own accord. Very few people, if any, are raised in a religion and go through life without questioning it at all.

Originally posted by Jomb
It's obvious to me that religion is an expression of culture. If you believe that there is only 1 god, and yet the facts on the ground are that most people in the world are not members of your religion, but are instead involved in any number of regional religions, what other explanation is there but that they have their own cultural way of worshipping the same god you're worshipping? Unless you think they are all ignorant fools or Satanic.
The other explanation is that the Messiah that I believe in was confined to a particular geographical region during His time on Earth, and His teachings spread in such a way that they reached some areas of the world and not others. Or, the specific cultures that did not accept Christianity were structured such that the teachings of Christ did not appeal to their established cultural sensibilities. They are not "ignorant fools" or "Satanic," nor are they generally all worshiping my God in different ways; instead, religion was so deeply tied to culture that the two could not be separated, eliminating the potential for any sort of conversion or "enlightenment" to occur.

Of course, individual people from within such groups can convert on their own. Of the three permanent priests at my home church, one is a native Korean; he found Christ even as Christianity is not overwhelmingly popular where he was raised. That is a fairly common story.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-28-06 04:57 AM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Thexare
Uh, so in other words one example can disprove 99.5%?

Because, see, last time I checked, a single example could only disprove 100%.
It's intended as an anecdotal example that can be generalized to a larger scale. I thought I implied that, but I suppose the implication wasn't strong enough.

Originally posted by Sin Dogan
75% in our town??? I think you're being way too generous. Most of the people say that they are of a certain religion but have not really given much thought to what they believe in and see religion as something you are born with.
Well, I use the term "religious" very loosely. By most statistics, an enormous percentage of America is "religious," but a solid percentage of those people are more than likely just Christian or Jewish or whatever else in name only. Case in point: frequently, when the topic of religion comes up in conversation, and someone says that they are Catholic, I will ask them what church they go to. And they'll say something like, "Well, I don't really go to church." Church attendance is a cornerstone Catholic precept, and these people will say that they are Catholic because their parents baptized them or made them take their Confirmations or because everyone in their family calls themselves Catholic, but won't put any actual thought into the fact that they are truly nonreligious. It really bothers me when somebody says they belong to my religion, and then give that religion a bad name by not adhering to any of its essential beliefs.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-28-06 03:05 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Arwon
I love that. "By most statistics, an enormous percentage of America is "religious," but [...] in name only".

You hear this a lot from Christians. The best is when right-wing fundamentalists take a narrow view of who is and isn't a Christian, such that they accuse significant numbers of other people of not being religous.... but then, Christian leaders still claim to be part of a moral majority in spite of the fact that they recognise a large part of that majority isn't actually religious.

I'm not accusing you of this by any means, SS, but I just want you to bear this in mind the next time you're tempted to invoke a "moral majority" type argument in the name of the alleged vast numbers of faithful.
I'm not making some sort of elitist judgment. I am just pointing out something that can be clearly proven through statistics. Case in point, a major tenet of Catholicism is weekly attendance of Mass. The percentage of people who call themselves Catholic is much larger than the percentage who say they regularly go to church. Therefore, there are a great number of "Catholics" who do not adhere to one of its major precepts.

Consider, also, the great number of divorces. Catholicism strictly frowns upon divorce, going so far as to define any second marriage without an annulment of the first marriage as adultery. Yet, many "Catholics" divorce and remarry without an annulment.

Same thing with premarital sex, and abortion, and contraception (which is a controversial issue, but that's another story), and ten other things. I'm not just going around defining who is Catholic and who isn't because I'm some sort of elitist, but because the people who do not keep my faith give it a bad name for those of us who try very hard to.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-28-06 06:08 PM, in ... A terrifying nightmare a sign? Link
It means that, while the brain is an incredibly complex instrument, it lacks the ability to predict future events. Even through the subconscious and dreams.

So, the dream either reflects a past event, or it is simple nonsense. Either way, it's nothing to get worked up over.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-28-06 09:02 PM, in When the world ends Link
...so, you're telling me that you know how the Earth will end, and you have that information because of some dreams you had?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-29-06 12:57 AM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Actually, that is a very good example, Politics and Religion are very similar in more ways than I think you were implying I'd go so far as to say that there is a fine line between politics and religion and the two can be interchangable if care isn't taken to seperate them. I actually would'nt really mind if the world's governments were abolished and we all just lived as individual people with no country. But I'm a realist and know that that isn't ever going to happen
Religion and politics can both act as tools through which people can gain power and influence others, but your silly rhetoric that they are nearly identical is nonsense.

Government may do plenty of harm, but is an absolutely necessary evil. Anarchy does not work in practice, at all.

Originally posted by Jomb
Because at one time I was a Methodist. I was born as one and lived as one for a decade or so, but then realized it was all just like when my parents told me about Santa Claus as a child. The only thing different in my life is I dont attend church or claim a religion anymore.
Well, if you were a "good person" when you were a Methodist and have not changed at all in that respect, more power to you. I've never said that the only way to be righteous and virtuous is to claim a religion.

Originally posted by Jomb
Right, there is no reason to draw the conclusion that any of it is actual literal truth without evidence, especially when parts are known to be untrue. There is no reason to draw any conclusion at all, including that the parts that are convenient to you, or the parts that you like, are literally true.
I think your mistake is that you assume that one falsehood or less-than-literal story in the Bible automatically invalidates the rest of it. And there's no reason to believe that.

The reason I have to draw a conclusion, and to read certain parts of Scripture as I do, is faith. It all leads back to faith. In order to understand true spirituality and religion, you need to step outside your empirical nature and realize that we do not rely on the scientific method to form our beliefs. If to you that means we are stupid and irrational, I guess that's your opinion (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth when I say that, I'm just making a generalization).

Originally posted by Jomb
In my case that is how I became an Atheist, through exercising free-thinking. Not everyone is a free-thinker, and not all free-thinkers are religious or not religious. If you sat down and honestly contemplated the nature of the world as you know it, meditated on the different religions in the world, then made a decision based on the FACTS of the religions, then you came by your way of life through free-thinking. Most religious people did not do this, most of the people I know who claim a religion dont really care about it. Thats harsh to say, and i dont mean it as insulting, but in all honesty it's just not important to them or something they give much thought. Kinda like how some people just dont really care about politics or sports, etc. Most people attend a church because that's one of the only churches in their area, or because that's the church their family attends and their family would be disappointed if they did'nt attend it. I dont think at all that the majority of religious people are blindly following their religion, though there are some, just for most of them its whats expected of them and they do it without thought, but also without an extreme amount of devotion.
--------But, if after deep thought on all the other religions in the world, you just happened to come to the conclusion that the one you were already involved with is the true one, that is one hell of a coincidence, isn't it? Thats what I'd call ethnocentrism
As I continue to reiterate, religion is not about factual evidence. If I sat down and sought every bit of factual evidence I could that proves my religion, and refused to remain Catholic if I could not collect enough empirical proof, then I would not be Catholic anymore (and likely nobody else on Earth would, either). Searching oneself and considering one's religion does not mean seeking proof for it, but assessing it emotionally and intellectually and getting that feeling that it's just "right."

Originally posted by Jomb
In census I'm considered a Christian because I was a long long time ago.
Maybe the next time the census comes around, you should correct that.

Originally posted by Jomb
What's your point? My point is this, take a good hard look around, how many white american teenagers are becoming Hindus? Do you even know 1?
No, of course not .

Originally posted by Jomb
How many white american teenagers are considered Christian? Almost all of them I'm willing to wager.
How many call themselves Christian, or how many are Christian?

Originally posted by Jomb
Go to Delhi, how many Indian teenagers are converting to Wiccan? Probably none. How many are considered Hindus? Probably the majority of them. This is the kind of correlation you get with something which is cultural in nature rather than fact-based. But, the people in Delhi believe in the principles which make a Steam Engine work the same as we do, because that is fact based. See the difference?
Jomb, I'm not disagreeing with you that religion largely stems from cultural bias. I never tried to argue against that. My argument is and has continually been that, while a solid majority of people will follow the religion that their environment endorses, it is irresponsible to imply that any given individual is a mindless sheep who is of whatever religion his parents and peers exposed him to. You originally implied that I am Catholic because that's how I was raised, without acknowledging that I (and plenty of other people) have consciously decided that, while my upbringing is x, I also personally believe in x.

Originally posted by Jomb
But, if the teaching were divine words straight from god, would they not be the absolute truth and easily be recognized as such by most anyone who read them?
Are you saying that the true word of God would be so clearly and undeniably true that nobody could possibly deny it? Because most religion relies on its inability to be proven, and something of such magical effect would clearly prove God, no?

Originally posted by Jomb
Regardless of which culture people belong to are'nt they still the creations of god? All religion is deeply tied to culture, it is culture
First, how does religion being tightly connected to culture make it equivalent to culture?

Second, this is getting off track. I was originally, and still am, referring to Christianity above all else. I can't speak for anything else, really, except maybe Judaism. Partly because I don't know enough about many other religions.

Originally posted by Jomb
But to tie in with an earlier point, you were previously saying that theism was essentially all the same because its a general belief in god, but now you're saying that many of those other religions are not worshipping the same god as you. So are they still theists? Since they are'nt worshipping the same god as you, one of you has to be wrong, why do you think its they that are wrong?
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, but I believe that Judaism and Islam are flawed in many of their Earthly practices. Otherwise, though, I think their followers closely match adherents to Christianity.

For those that worship a different god than the Christian God, the conclusion is simple: I am right, they are wrong. What else could I possibly think? And, before you ask: no, I have no empirical proof. It's about faith.

That should just be the sentence I brand the end of every post with:

It's all about faith.

Because, I feel like that's the only way to answer most of these questions.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-29-06 11:58 AM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Arwon
And that's why the religious always have the home-ground advantage in these arguments.
Exactly. But I'm hardly trying to "win" this argument, I'm just trying to point out why I believe what I do. Because many people find it absolutely impossible to believe what is not tangibly in front of their faces.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-29-06 06:39 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Arwon
I just find it really weird that people can be so self-assured and ethnocentric as to believe they have it right out of all the cultures over all the times there have been, that they were born into the one true faith, and not, say, a billion Hindus or the Jews who were around before them. The "all worshipping the same thing" cop-out doesn't cut it. It's just an utterly confusing, alien perspective.
Do you really know anyone who says "I strongly believe in x religion, but I don't know if it's the right religion"? Because I don't think I know anyone like that. Anyone who would vacillate so much would more likely just not believe in anything at all, rather than "kind of" believing in something that requires so much faith.

I get the sense that you're trying to say that I should be free to believe what I want, but I shouldn't jump to assume that my beliefs are the only correct ones...but, really, do you even do that? Do you take a side in a political discussion, for example, without fully believing that you are right and the other guy is wrong?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-30-06 10:41 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
I don't think it's nonsense, because politics and religion have very similar means and ends, and some politicians from the past tried to become gods, and religious leaders commonly try to also be political leaders. I think they are both just aspects of culture.
The purpose of government is, ideally, to ensure the security and well-being of its citizens. The purpose of organized religion is, ideally, to lead its members to salvation in the afterlife(speaking of Abrahamic religion, at least). The ends of each are in no way similar.

As far as the means...a government ensures that security and well-being by drafting and enforcing laws. A religion ensures salvation by drafting and suggesting regulations and guidelines. Are they similar in that sense? Sure, I suppose, but only superficially.

Originally posted by Jomb
Yes, it's too bad about Anarchy, it may not work, but I'd probably attempt to live under it if I had any choice in the matter, how much worse could it really be?
It could be a lot worse if it were implemented on any large scale. Because, though you may do perfectly fine without external governance, there are plenty of people who would take advantage of such freedom by doing not-so-nice things.

Originally posted by Jomb
no, you never did claim that, but you did say that I'd be a different person with religion, but I dont feel any different than when I had it.
If you were a "true" Christian - that is, you earnestly believed in it and it influenced your lifestyle - then you were certainly a different person then. The belief or non-belief in a supernatural deity requires a great shift in a person's perception of the world, if nothing else.

Originally posted by Jomb
I dont think you are stupid and irrational, most religious people are'nt. They just dont bother to question it, because its tradition and custom.. you know, culture
Everybody is influenced by their culture, even me
The problems happen when people get caught up in their culture and believe it's vastly superior to everybody else's. That everybody else should be just like them.
Religion requires great sacrifices of time and resources in terms of devoting time to worship, donating monetarily, etc...as it is objectively a "detrimental" activity, at least practically speaking, I can't imagine why people would just blindly follow it if they have no vested interest and sufficient belief in it. Like, those people that don't take religion too seriously also don't spend much time and money on it, while the opposite is true for those who are serious adherents.

My point is, it is unlikely that most rational, practical people just follow it blindly because "they just do." Instead, those people who honestly believe in their religions do so actively rather than passively, because they go so far as to take action by making sacrifice.

Originally posted by Jomb
Right, it's about culture (or faith if you like). But free-thinking is about stepping outside your culture and analyzing things with logic and facts. This is why so many people referred to as "Free-Thinkers" are Agnostics or Atheists.
So many people who are referred to as "free-thinkers" are non-religious because religion has become increasingly demonized in the modern West. Christians are seen as stupid rednecks, or their priests as pedophiles, or as any number of other silly stereotypes.

Originally posted by Jomb
Maybe I will, I dont really consider it a high priority though, it makes no difference to me what the government thinks I am...
But it makes a difference to me when someone like you, who says they're Christian only because they were born into it even though they have no personal attachment to it, commits acts that are harmful to the greater Christian reputation. Because people then attach such acts to the Christian label rather than to the individual person.

Originally posted by Jomb
Calling yourself Christian is all thats necessary to be a Christian in most people's eyes. Because most people are'nt really that into their religion to care if people are fakes in it or not.
Then "most people" are wrong.

Originally posted by Jomb
I'm not saying people are mindless sheeps, only that for the vast majority of people their religious affiliation is simply an expression of their culture and not the result of going out and trying different religions (or no religion) till they found the one that they believe is right for them.
And I should reiterate that culture can be a good thing, the Earth would be one dull place if everyone had the same culture. The trick is to have tolerance for other viewpoints and enjoy the differences rather than become scared by them.
People who are whatever religion they are because they were born into it are going about it all wrong. People who were born into that religion but then later accepted it on their own have the right idea.

Also, I don't see why it's necessary to "try out different religions" before deciding on one. I don't drink alcohol, and my friends always say that I should at least try it before deciding that I don't want to; but, I point out that it's not about me searching for whatever lifestyle is "most fun," but about recognizing the one that I think is right. As with religion, I don't feel obligated to try my hand at every world religion before I am entitled to choose one, because I feel like the one I have now is the one that fits me and the one that is true.

Originally posted by Jomb
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, if a writing were truly divine then it would be obvious to everyone who read it that it was true and there'd be no serious doubt.
That's a fallacy. Like I said, a major concept within religion is that of faith; a person who believes in a religion does so without concrete evidence, and is so "proven" as a devout believer. But any writing that is so magical and supernatural that it is the obvious work of God would defy that necessity of faith and, in so doing, defy a cornerstone of what Christianity is.

Originally posted by Jomb
To my way of thinking, the fact that religions rely on inabilty to be proven and the need for faith, is one of the strongest bits of circumstantial evidence AGAINST them being true. After all, that is the sort of things which con-men traffic in.
It's an unfortunate coincidence (for lack of a better word) that con-men use such methods, but in no way does it prove that religion is itself a con. The former does not indicate, either directly or indirectly, the latter.

Originally posted by Jomb
But, I'd argue that since you dont know much about other religions, how do you know they are wrong?
I know they are wrong because my personal belief in the Savior would immediately discount a great majority of those world religions that don't include Jesus.

Originally posted by Jomb
Most of them pass the same litmus test you were giving your own religion, that they cant be 100% disproven.
The fact that my religion cannot be proven is not the reason that I believe in it; it is simply a fact that is associated with it.

Originally posted by Jomb
This is exactly the sort of arrogance which allows religions to be used to wage wars, after all, we're right and they are wrong, so we need to make them see it our way. Why are we right without evidence? Why are they wrong without evidence? Because of faith, which both sides have. Not that you'd personally do that, I dont consider you violent.
Believing that "we" are right and "they" are wrong is perfectly fine. Believing that we need to forcibly convince "them" to accept our beliefs is not. Jesus' idea of evangelization extends only to preaching and encouraging, not to violently converting.

Originally posted by Jomb
It is the only way to answer religious questions short of actually having some hard evidence. But it's really the equivalent of saying "because my family tradition says this is the right way, as does my culture, and not wanting to disrespect my heritage I'll follow suit."
No, I disagree totally. My family tradition may be Catholic, but I am not Catholic because of my family tradition. My ex-girlfriend's family tradition may be Presbyterian, but she is not Presbyterian because of her family tradition. In fact, she's not Presbyterian at all, she is Catholic. So, it's not strictly family tradition. People who are not "true" believers, as I've outlined above, may adhere to their religions in order to please their relatives, but people who are strong in their beliefs have personal rather than familial reasons.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 10-31-06 01:47 AM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Indeed what he set up was a fallacy. Regardless, it would be impossible to create such a book, that by its own power convinces people of the existence of anything.
Which contributes to the invalidity of his argument.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
The nature of the scienfic method is observation in the here and now. I find it very strong evidence that the New Testament claims many bore witness to Jesus' miracles and the miracles of his followers, but it does not convince me that what is written is actually true. I'm reminded of the Family Guy treatment of the Jesus miracles. Yes we understand that your mindset is determined by faith, we just don't care for that mindset ourselves.
If you've been exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and you've received a fair treatment of what they really stand for, yet you are not interested, it is beyond my power and my duty to do anything more. As I said, I'm not here to convert anyone. It you don't care for that mindset yourself, I'm not about to argue with you about it.

Originally posted by Jomb
To quote the movie Pi: When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.

I want you to consider if there is any wisdom in this statement, because if you don't, it's only going to seem like I'm flaming you.

This of course happened to be concerning the number 216 appearing everywhere, which, by the way, is 6^3 = 6*6*6 which looks like 666 (scary coincidence eh?), but the point stands. A relative of mine at one point thought a man from California was out to get us [my family] and had conspired against us with the police due to a hormonal leap into menopause. But I don't really consider her any more insane than the theories of most religions out there. Probably a little more paranoid. She's fine now though, thanks to some therapy and a little drugs.

Now obviously the paranoid kind of insanity is more dangerous to those around you and not very healthy. Most people would rather believe that what they find pleasing is true. And that is why I think many people like Christianity. It is a very pleasing religion to believe in. The idea that those who are good and follow Jesus' teaching receive a reward is something many people will find comfort in. How many popular religions are there that tell everyone they are going to hell no matter what? A religion like that just doesn't sell. There are some that say "oh, only X amount are going to heaven." And everyone in that religion probably thinks that they are 1 out of that X because in their mind they are all competing. It's sounds like one of those game theory problems to try to keep everyone acting honest. Like I said earlier, I do believe that religions are crafted by geniouses. I mean, just look at how well Christianity has spread! (Sometimes by the sword but we won't go into that.)
Let me just break down your argument into more concise (yet still equivalent) terms, so that I may address it more clearly:


For many people, the idle coincidences of the daily world are construed to stand for some greater theme. That is, every mundane, daily event is understood by a religious person to be evidence for a Higher Power, because those religious people are actively seeking such evidence. If such a bias did not exist, people could see those meaningless occurances for what they really are - that is, just simply, meaningless occurances.


If any of that is off-base, let me know. Otherwise, let me pose a thought to you. First, your reasoning is absolutely valid. It is scientific fact that the human brain will seek a common thread between events and items, either consciously and unconsciously, and will understand those events to be components of a greater "conspiracy" of some sort.

However, I think you stumble when you assume that religion is, indeed, just that human tendency to distort reality. I won't argue with you for a second over the notion that the brain has that tendency, but there is no external evidence for you to automatically attribute religion to it. You take the human mind and its behavior, and you take religion, and you insist that a connection exist where one may or may not. Do you get me? The problem with the argument is that your assumption is drawn without any sort of direct motivation for it.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 11-01-06 10:40 PM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
The politics is very similar to religion debate is rather interesting, I think. You have to consider such things as the way people lived in ancient times, where in many nations the religion WAS the government and vice versa. Or the Roman emperors or Egyptian Pharoahs who insisted they were infact Gods. Seperating the 2 is a somewhat modern concept. But it's probably a whole new thread
As I've been pointing out, I only refer to modern Christianity above all else. I cannot speak for or defend most other religions, both because I don't know enough about them and because I don't think many of them are defensible, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Jomb
No, these are not usually detrimental activities when you get down to it. There are great rewards in the praise of other people about how good a person you are [...]
Not in my experience, at least not in general. I don't go to church so that people can ooh and aah and call me a good boy, especially because nobody really does that, anyway.

Originally posted by Jomb
[...] sometimes there are tax breaks involved [...]
I don't know a thing about taxes; do you have a concrete example?

Originally posted by Jomb
[...] some people meet people through their religious activities, which is a social reward for them beyond anything specifically about being completely devoted.
Again, in my experience, you typically don't meet people in church. You go to Mass, sit through it, and leave. There are plenty of extraneous activities - youth groups, Bible study, etc - but those are a totally different story. If you're using those things as social clubs, then you don't really have the right idea.

Originally posted by Jomb
But yes, on a whole most people are'nt that committed to their religion to go too far out of their way, in my observations. But that does'nt stop them from claiming a religion or being taken seriously as a member of that religion.
It doesn't stop them from claiming a religion (even though it should - as I've said, those people who are Christian in name but no in action give the rest of us a bad name), but it often does stop them from being taken at all seriously. I mean, nobody admires that group of people that are in church for Christmas and for Easter but not otherwise.

Originally posted by Jomb
I dont think thats it at all, you yourself admitted that based only on hard facts you could'nt follow a religion, and thats the kind of thinking and tough choices a person may have to face when they engage in serious free-thinking. Not that those stereotypes are completely valid, but they get reinforced when you go to redneck country (I've lived there before actually) and find tons of ignorant people screaming about how christian they are while simultaneously breaking just about every commandment.
If the "tough choice" is to renounce a religion because hard evidence does not exist, I think it's incorrect to assume that it's the "right choice."

And, yeah, those stereotypical rednecks who break just about every commandment are not "true Christians," as far as I've been using that term. Of course, they're all Protestants, but that's a whole new argument...

Originally posted by Jomb
Why would you care? I dont claim to be a christian in my daily life, i dont attend church, i dont do things in the name of a church, etc. My grandma keeps my name registered at her church because it makes her feel better, and quite frankly it does'nt matter to me. I figure making an old lady feel good is worth something, while going to her church and insisting i'm not a member and must have my name removed would just make her feel bad for no reason. It affects me not one bit.
I don't mean to use "you" to refer to you specifically, but more as a generality. That is, in general terms, when people take the Christian label (for any of a hundred possible reasons) but then don't adhere to Christian precepts in daily life, it gives the rest of us a bad name. There's the classic story of someone who is presently atheist hating Christianity because a bunch of kids who called themselves Christian used to beat him up in high school; those bullies are hardly Christian, yet their behavior generalizes to the greater population.

Originally posted by Jomb
You have a elitist view on who is a christian and who isn't. By your very strict definition, a very small percentage of the people currently thought of as christians actually are. Out in society it does'nt work like that though, if you claim to be one you are. that's how it works with the statistics and census, etc. Plus the fact that a very large portion of people saying they are christian dont regularly attend church, but just about everyone still considers them christian.
It's not elitist at all, it's realistic. A Christian is not a person who says "I am a Christian," but a person who lives by the ideals set forth by Christ. I'm not trying to be malicious or elitist at all but, as I've been saying, the misdeeds of the "false" Christians give "true" Christians a bad name.

Originally posted by Jomb
It's not necessary, because almost nobody does this and yet they are still accepted as whatever religion they are. But if you were seeking truth and wisdom honestly, and not simply reflecting your culture, you'd be trying every religion you could before making any final decisions. It's not about which is "most fun" it's about which is "most true", or "most wise", or whatever you're looking for in religion.
"Most fun" was intended to be analogous to "most true." Maybe my analogy was a bit flawed .

But, in any case, who's to say that this first religion I've tried out isn't the one that is right? Maybe I feel like I don't need to test a million different faiths because I know that the one I presently have is ideal.

Originally posted by Jomb
I dont consider this a fallacy, if a god wrote something down, it would be absolute truth and would cut through all the bullshit instantly for anyone who read it. It would'nt be ambiguous and easily interpreted in thousands of conflicting ways. Why is faith in a book important to your religion? Other than because its written in the same book that demands the faith.
First, you don't have your Christian doctrine straight. No sect that I know of says that the Bible is God's own handwriting, and few say that it is His exact verbatim dictation. The Christian sect that I represent - Catholicism - takes the approach that the Bible is inspired by God. So, your question is based on misinformation.

But that doesn't change the fact that, as I am trying to reiterate, if a book were so obviously and undeniably written by God, it would require no faith to accept, and so the main idea of religion - that of faith - would be destroyed. Which makes your proposal a fallacy. Not to mention the fact that you and I have never seen a text that has actually been written by a supernatural deity, and so we have no grounds to make assumptions about what such a book's properties might be.

Originally posted by Jomb
I repeat, why would a being which is vastly superior to us in every way care whether we had faith in it or not? That would matter to it how?
Another one of those questions that has no acceptable answer beyond the old "God works in mysterious ways." He is so far above us that we cannot hope to understand His plan or His motives.

Originally posted by Jomb
No it does'nt completely prove anything, but it is yet another chunk of circumstantial evidence on the mountain of circumstantial evidence against such a thing actually being true.
And, by definition, circumstantial evidence proves nothing. Especially not in a scenario in which the belief that is being questioned does not rely on concrete evidence at all.

Originally posted by Jomb
Why? Maybe they never met Jesus but did meet X(whoever is divine in their religion), perhaps X is also a god and the 2 are both true and valid. This scenario is no less plausable than either of them being true. Or, maybe god appeared to them in a different form and set up their religion (afterall, god is incomprehensible and cant be understood)
My belief system says that your statements are false. I have no defense beyond that, especially because my belief system is not largely based on concrete evidence.

And, while God is certainly incomprehensible in His entirety, He gifted humanity with at least a basic understanding of how He wants us to live. God's methods and motives cannot be understood, but He is not absolutely beyond our knowledge in the sense that humans have the Bible and the teachings of Jesus from which to draw wisdom and advice.

Originally posted by Jomb
Without proof to back up your claim it comes off more as arrogance and hubris to say definitively that you are right and they are wrong.
You expect me to say "I base my entire life around a set of beliefs, try to develop my entire person and decide my every action based on that belief system, but I'm not really sure that it's true, it's just my opinion"? That's a little absurd. I am what I am because I staunchly believe that I am right, not because Christianity is "the best thing out there" right now.

Originally posted by Jomb
religions dont always use outright violence to spread, there are many areas of the world where i've read accounts of people being coerced to convert using such means as with-holding medical aid or cutting them out of business if they dont change their religion.
And those methods are absolutely wrong and no righteous person could condone them.

Originally posted by Jomb
OK, so you both were born into a christian society and both continued as christians without any honest attempts to understand other religions and i'm supposed to believe it has nothing to do with your culture and is just an amazing coincidence?
Well, within Christianity there is a great deal of separation between denominations, so it's hardly as if we were raised in the same tradition. And add to that the fact that Catholics and Protestants tend to virulently oppose one another in many cases...
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 11-02-06 12:31 AM, in Atheism versus Religion Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Any charitable donations, for example, become tax write-offs.
And there are just as many charities that are not religiously affiliated at all. Not to mention the fact that donation to a charity can be attributed to general human benevolence as opposed to necessarily being attached to any church or religion whatsoever.

Originally posted by Jomb
I cant tell you how many people have said to me "I'm going to church so I can meet a wife (or husband).
Then they're looking in the wrong place. I can't really speak for Protestantism, but a Catholic service is a serious, almost grave event and there's hardly any networking going on. If you want to meet a potential mate who shares your religion, you may go to the social events sponsored by your church, but I doubt you would go to a Mass itself.

Originally posted by Jomb
It depends on if you think that truth is whats right, or feeling safe is what's right. For some people the truth is inherantly right, for others the truth is less important than peace of mind. To me truth is more important than feelings of well-being.
I feel safe and well, yet I'm quite certain I've found the truth as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Jomb
Fair enough, people who truly follow the teachings of Jesus are hard to dislike. But in the real world they are a small percentage of what people refer to as christians.
A person who strictly and successfully follows Jesus' teachings has to be the most likable person in the world. He puts others before himself always, he is friendly and generous, he is not violent.

However, just because the popular notion is that anyone who wants to call themselves Christian automatically is Christian, doesn't mean the popular notion is correct.

Originally posted by Jomb
No one is to say that it isn't right, but if you have'nt tried the others with an open mind, then you yourself cant justify making that claim either.
I can justify it. At this moment, I consider my beliefs and feel they are the absolute truth, the absolute right. I can't imagine anything superior. Why bother searching through the untruth when I already possess the truth?

Originally posted by Jomb
Which is it, is he incomprehensible, or do we comprehend him? I still dont understand why he wants us to have faith in him and what he'd gain from that, where is that explained? The most obvious conclusion is that it is not god who wants us to have faith that he exists without proof, but rather it is the authors of the bible and/or church leaders.
I thought I put it pretty clearly before. Let me try again: God's motives, the reasons He does what He does and He made what He made, are absolutely beyond humanity; we can speculate and search, but we will never know for certain. However, we can know how He wants us to behave. We do not necessarily know why we are supposed to behave in that way, only that it is the will of our God, and He promises us salvation if we obey Him. Any better?

Originally posted by Jomb
Then why do you claim that his plan is for us to have faith in him without any proof? I thought we could'nt comprehend his plan? Why would his plan involve something that would make us a rube in virtually any other debate or situation?
You're using the wrong vocabulary, and then going on an assumption that is based on that faulty language. It is not God's "plan" for us to have faith in Him without proof. His "plan" is absolutely beyond what we as humans can understand. It is God's "will" that believe in Him, and we can certainly know His will - after all, the Bible and Jesus are our two greatest sources in acting as God wishes.

Originally posted by Jomb
What i'm trying to understand is WHY you think you're right without any proof or even without looking into the other ways of thinking about this thing we call religion. The only answer I can come up with is because of your upbringing and/or cultural influences.
Because I hear God's voice and see His works every day. And, I know you'll take that to mean that I literally have a conversation with God, but I'll make no such claim; instead, I find myself in constant awe of the enormity and beauty of our world, and I see it as sprung from a supreme deity rather than a fully natural set of cause-effect. I don't mean to keep using this phrase but, honestly, there is no concrete evidence.

Originally posted by Jomb
You all follow the same book, the other stuff is mostly petty squabbling about minor details as far as I can tell.
Pretty much, yeah. Many Protestants believe that salvation comes from belief in Jesus rather than from good works, which is the issue I have the most problem with, but the differences are otherwise superficial.

Edit to flesh out my first point.

(edited by Silvershield on 11-02-06 12:48 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 11-05-06 02:19 AM, in Changing the color scheme Link
Why do you people keep screwing with the board color scheme that I've chosen? I mean, I'm colorblind, and I have it set up the way I do so that I can distinguish which threads I've read and which I haven't, and every time it changes I re-encounter the problem of being unable to distinguish the color of unread topics versus read topics. Dammit.

Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6325 days
Last view: 6313 days
Posted on 11-05-06 02:45 AM, in What is the best SNES music track? Link
Don't really have a ton to contribute, except to say that Memories of Green, Secret of the Forest, Silent Light, Corridors of Time, and Sealed Door are absolutely phenomenal. I don't have much experience with many other SNES games, though - at least not any SNES games that boast respectable soundtracks.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.039 seconds; used 563.55 kB (max 744.77 kB)