WITHTEETH

Thats always nice ot hear. Graphics are great but what about gameplay. I'd rather save $200 and play a year or 2 old engine, then buy another graphic card. I'm also curious to see how well λ

Sweet, I'll check it out. I think i should upgrade my CPU before i do. I'm dreading this because i have a 2ghz pentium 478 pin i want to get 3.4prescott, but i hear they naturally run hot. Also they are more expensive then AMD's. But it will be a significant performance boast that will be worth it. If I decided just to build a AMD machine I'd have to scrap my 6800GTagp for a PCIE, not worth it.

Hinduism is a Major Religion and the gods are asexual in some views for example. Is the Virgin Mary in catholicism a saint? Yes there are some strife with many religions not to be ignorant, but there is also strife amongst secular influences and homosexuality and treating women equal. Peace Paladin

You could at least get my name right This was a violent and harsh world from the outset long before religion was around. It's still a violent and harsh world even after a couple of millenia of various religions. Doubt ending religion will end the violence, but it would be a change of pace. People would need to come up with some other excuses to harsh on each other. You dont need religion to be a decent person you can teach morals without religion.Religion equally leads to intolerance and the objectification of women (or at least not treating them with equal respect) among other things. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Becareful ShadowPaladin. your statement on interlerence and the treating women are subjective. That is your point of view that might not be the same to the person next to you. there are many types of religions, you can't dismiss all with one fatal swoop. True, you do not need religion to have morals, as we are examples. Maybe if anything is to blame its civilization not religioin, for that has corrupted us, not in a sense of making us evil but it started the destruction of the planet. just a different perspective. Can we reverse civilization? no. Unless you want to end humanity.

What makes this world violoent? what makes this world harsh? Is there only one optoin to helping cure these epedemics? no, but the more the merrier. I don't want to tell anyone they are wrong to choosing a different set of beliefs then i. Keep your individuality, it makes you special!

hehe.. I see you've learned something today? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, if i ever go to denmark, i will be able to woo the felines!

Too some yes. I was never disputing that. Only that they are not universal needs. Which by definition makes them comforts, they make people feel better. Like the blanky example. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think we need ideas, beleifs or ideologies as much as a healthy person needs sex. speaking of, any smukke women in here? "

Im not saying that its NOT a need to eat or breath, im stating that ideologies, ideas/ beliefs are also a neccesities to some. merely an addition.

Thats not a need though since your applying it to a specific frame of mind. Where as the things I outlined as needs, you deprive anyone of those and the result is the same Ideologies can also be self destructive. Where as a person with that ideology (or having had it crushed) will self desctruct it would have no effect on anyone else. For example definitive proof there was no "god" would hardly bother me , except for a few I told you so's. For others it would destroy the very meaning of their existence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Subjective. It may bother others that their might not be a God. Others might wonder, what is the point to life then? fail to think creatively enough, go into a downward spiral and shoot themselves. Misery is misery, we can't judge someone elses misery. If they believe in something they might have a higher chance to live on. whether that be science, philosophy, religion or carers as i said.

Kaftan makes a great point! Pooping can cause release of suffering, thus so you won't have a reason to commit suicide.

Needs would be those things required for survival food and air are a need , so is water. If your not alive, then all those other questions, not that important. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But ideologies can be a survival trait also. It gives meaning to their lives so that the suffereing has understanding. Thus changing the attitude of the person into optimistically not suffering anymore. In this case it is needed so not to commit suicide.

Do we ? Is it a need or just a desire for security ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Need, desire, they are the same in this case. One doesn't really NEED anything except to cause an effect. Do you need a breath of air? no unless you want the effect of life. Do you need a ideas or idealogy? no unless you want to define the world around you. Man has always been looking for answers, it is in our nature. We have a need/desire to define everything.

Hurlshot, your right relgion does have a point, it sves the religious. Science saves scientists, philosophy saves the philosopher, and careers saves the careerists.

Arguably, atheists and agnostics are one and the same, or at least very close. I know that in common usage, they appear to be different, with atheists confident that there is no God, and agnostics unsure of whether there is a God or not. But if you dig a little deeper, there's not much difference between the two positions. Few atheists would say 'It is impossible that God created the world'. Instead, they would say 'There is no evidence that God created the world, and ample evidence that the world came into existence by other means, therefore I believe that God did not create the world.' This is not an outright denial, so technically those atheists could also be called agnostics. Agnosticism is not a middle way between atheism and theism, because the agnostic usually doubts and wants evidence. It is usually therefore closer to atheism, though an self-proclaimed agnostic might disagree. In any case, the agnostic inherently shares the scepticism of the atheist rather than the faith of the theist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup, The common division in atheism is between weak atheism and strong atheism. Strong atheism is the position that God does not exist, and that the existence of God is itself impossible. A weak atheist is someone who does not have a belief in God, but that the idea of God is not necessarily logically impossible (though particular definitions of God, such as the Christian God, is can be considered to be logically impossible). The distinction lies in that the Strong atheist is making a claim about existence, while the weak atheist is making a claim about knowledge. As for myself, I'm a weak atheist (I don't have a belief in god, but recognize that certain definitions of God are logically possible). Lines can begin to blur.

Darwin was was agnostic btw.

(+) theism: The belief in a god (-)Atheism: The Disbelief (_)Agnosticism: Neutral The only one that isn't taking the leap of faith is the agnostic - ShadowpaladinV1.0 hes not using faith because he states he doesn't know. Hes nuetral. nothing wrong with indecision, steve you said it yourself if remember correctly that its underated. :D Whats wrong with saying I dont know?! nothing, its great!

Not really I waver between aetheist and agnostic so I dont really fit your description at all. There may be evidence for some sort of divine being, but an all powerful all knowing one ? Dont see much evidence for that do you ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I personally don't see any evidence for anything divine. then again there is no evidence to disprove it so i see your dilemma.

But if we go far back enough, we are taking a leap of faith somewhere. so it is faith. I don't like the word either myself, i agree with you SteveThaiBinh. But I don't want to raise myself above another and tell them their beleifs are wrong because i say so. Thus if i said i didn't like the word faith and science being used together, it would be my own fault for allowing myself to get agitetated at the idea of someone using them together. Make sense?

I wouldnt classify that as faith any more than I would classify laws as faith. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats because you are fastened in your belief that you are correct. And you are correct because you say so(im not being sarcastic). But still that doesn't mean you are correct to the person standing next to you. this is understanding in my point of view.

Actually we must all have faith in everything, even the smallest ideas, like 1+1=2, you must have faith for even this. for science we must have faith that the laws and theories that are here today will be here tomarrow. that is the faith in science i have.

This is what i was getting at before the Aetheists statred to get pissed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not pissed. I just wanted to explain my point of view in a sensible way, and create understanding. we are 2 sides of the same coin. :cool:

Thats fine, i myself wouldn't call evolution false from one observation. Scientists are creating similar experiments to conditions when the earth was first around. Trying to create life from nonlife. just because you haven't seen it , doesn't mean you proved it wrong, you still have to prove it wrong. its hard to prove somthing doesn't exist when it doesn't, is this not true?

Science isn't backed by science standpoint aye? ^_^ Can you extrapolate on your decision so we can anyalyze your conclusion? dismissing a current scientific theory is big news and should be publiced that you have the missing link to disprove this false information. IF your conclusion involves objective analysis. And remember, a scientific theory is a scietific theory, even if you don't beleive it. its fine if you don't. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean its not true. It doesn't claim to be an absolute truth. Science humbly says that there theories are "the best we can do so far". Many take these as truths, others as subjectivity, others as false, and some as blasphme. It doesn't matter to me how one intreprets them, as long as science stays science. sci