Cantousent

It reminds me of a joke I heard once: if the size of the brain were the size of the mind, the bear would be shooting at my behind. Anyhow, whatever the size of his brain, Grigori is one twisted fellow.

Marx and Engells said the proletarians need to free themselves from the shackles of religion. i don't believe it says "athieism" itself. am i wrong? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your statement is not wrong. Nonetheless, it is misguided. This is one quote from Karl Marx: "The people cannot be really happy until it has been deprived of illusory happiness by the abolition of religion. The demand that the people should shake itself free of illusion as to its own condition is the demand that it should abandon a condition which needs illusion." However, it is clear, even from this passage, that his meaning of religion includes more than just the organized religions but also the illusory belief in a higher power. Don't trust me, read some of Marx' treatises. If you can stay awake, you'll find out that I am correct and you'll have a first hand view of Marx' genius. He was wrong, but he was still a genius.

I haven't found any FPS as enthralling as the original Doom. I liked W3d, but Doom was the bomb. That's where FPSs first went from, "wow, this is kind of cool" to "wow, this is AWESOME."

Good God, he was one of the leads in the CHiPS T.V. series. You can see the California Highway on his shoulder, for crying out loud. I didn't much care for the show when it was first on television and I don't doubt I won't care for it now.

Catholicism is a part of Chrisianity. Christianity is not a part of Catholicism. Therefore, it does not follow that, since Catholics have a central religious authority, all Christian denominations have a central religious authority.

How these threads change. Now we're in to politics with a side order of religion. If our main entree is politics, then I'll order up a healthy serving of capitalism, with a side of Christianity, and globalization for dessert. It's a hearty meal, but it can cause indigestion.

How can you rate something 6.3/10 as loathing it. The damned scales are meaningless for these companies. My favorites have always been the 1 star rating from CGW. Now THERE is a magazine that's not afraid to give a low rating to something they truly hate.

I just recently had the chance to read Ender's Game. Great book. I might have to check out this game. I just don't always have the easiest time with the xbox controller.

I don't think disabled folks should be on the dole in the first place unless their disabilities are truly debilitating. Instead, workplaces should be expected, within reason, to accomodate people with disabilities. Now, if the Australian government is forcing some poor fellow to push a button with a straw clenched between his teeth in order to have food and shelter, then they've gone too far. If, on the other hand, they simply expect folks with disablities to take advantage of the accomodations the state mandates workplaces provide for folks with disabilities, then I don't see the uproar. As it is, you've made a statement that lacks clarity. What are the specifics, because I have serious doubts the government suddenly decided to start putting disabled folks into chain gangs.

Well, my disclaimer was somewhat misleading. I am adopted by my father, officially. Even my birth certificate has been officially changed so that my last name is the same as my dad's. However, my mother is my natural born mother. I did know my biological father, who was married to my mother for quite some time. In fact, my biological father and mother had six children, of whom I am youngest. There is a long, sordid, and rather brutal history involved in all that, and I won't bore you with the details. Suffice it to say that I got the better end of the deal in having my dad. Here's my take on adoption: My dad is my dad. I claim no other father and he has put up with more than you could know from me. Sure, nowadays I'm a great son. I visit my mom and dad regularly, fix things around their house, take care of things for them, and basically make myself on call. When I was younger, they weren't so lucky. When I wasn't ditching class I was getting suspended for a variety of offenses. I was often somewhere drinking, smoking, and otherwise getting in trouble. My dad has the patience of Job, and there has never been any doubt that he loves me and that he would be there for me whenever I needed him. In fact, one of the first times I saw him was when he took my sister and me to see the first Star Wars in the theater. Even though I was already eight when I met him, I have a strong bond with my dad. If I need to talk to someone to clear my head, my dad is the first person I call. As time has gone by, these past 25 years or so, he's needed me a few times and I'm gladdened by the fact that I've been able, in some small way, to help him. When I see these films where the child finds out he's adopted, goes through great inner turmoil, and then forsakes his adopted family to find his "real parents," I'm filled with a sort of illogical rage. I hate it. I look around at others who have gone through similar experiences and I shake my head. Friends whose mother remarried but the step-father didn't adopt them... Step-parents who don't treat their children equally... Children who are confused because they have a different last name than their parents... this all makes me shake my head. Why should the accident of birth make one person more suited than another? I've never had some sort of ridiculous internal conflict regarding my dad. If others do, then I pity them. At thirty-five, and not in the best of health, I'm willing to kick someone's ass for calling into question my relationship with my dad. ...And my dad and mom have been married for 25 years now. That's a worthy achievement in a world where we tend to see everything as disposable, even marriage. They just got lucky, I guess. How does this relate to homosexuals and adoption? I honestly don't know. I will say this, however, children need parents. Sure, some go through a series of foster homes or institutions and they can come out and be very happy. That's their story to tell. For my part, I think the ideal for every child is to have a home with parents who love him or her. If that home is provided by a homosexual couple, so be it. If it is with a heterosexual couple, so be it. I am a Catholic. I would be lying if I didn't say that I would rather a child go to a home where the parents were Christian. I would rather a child go to a home where the parents were "straight." ...But my personal preferences are not the issue here. The best thing is for the child to go to a home where the parents will love and care for them, providing not only food, shelter, and all that money can buy, but a lot of what money cannot buy. Well, you should have known better than to ask for a long explanation!

They do. And they are probably the ones fragging your arse, too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is a popular myth. Everyone wants "girls who can frag your ass" to exist, but in reality they don't. Unless you're actually considering those 0.001% to be a vital part of the demographics.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I love your use of quantified statistics. Gives me hope for the human race. Do you know that females have a smaller brain (volumetric capacity and by weight)? Thus we can extrapolate that they are less intelligent, too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is the size of the brain the size of the mind? ...Of course, women are not intellectually inferior to men, but there might be other reasons women don't frag as well as men. One reason might be they don't enjoy and therefore don't play the damned games. If I could just get my wife to play computer games with me, my life would be complete.

Full blown guffaws! This is funny. Of course, I don't aspire to Godhood, but the other two sounds pretty good. ...As long as the having fun accompanies immortality. I'd hate to find out that we're all immortal but the afterlife really sucks. Disclaimer for the adoption discussion, I am adopted.

I've played the star wars mod. The game is still the same, though. If you like Freelancer, and you like star wars, this is the mod for you. I didn't find that it breathed much new life into the game, personally. Good luck either way.

Atheism is a cornerstone of marxism. For a poltitical thinker concerned primarily with economics, Marx was particularly hostile to religion.

Far Thel Games: None. I'm about ready to cancel my membership to xbox live. I can't stand console FPSs and the other games I like are single player.

I love how the atheists have now asked us to prove a negative. Nuts. Now it's a free for all. Anything goes and no holds barred. We've all argued so long we've become each other. How I pity you all.

Then you're engaging is a religious argument as a true believer? After all, you've just put us on equivalent grounds. I know what you're saying about the minutes of the day, though. I've been coming here as I continue to do some writing I have to do. Lucky me. The damned message board is a major distraction. If we only had more time, huh?

I don't think factoring in as many variables as reasonably possible is the equivalent of saying homosexuals are restrained from adopting. No matter what else, adoption is, indeed, a privilege. There is no God given, man given, natural right to adopt. It is a responsibility that a person willingly undertakes. It is not something to take lightly and we should always consider the welfar of the child before the adopting couple or person.

Should the majority be forced to comly with the minority? I don't propose that homosexuals be persecuted. I propose that heterosexuals should, all things being equal, be preferred over homosexuals in regards to child adoption. I don't think that a more qualified homosexual couple should suffer, but homosexuality is a factor just like everything else. Heterosexuality is the norm in our society and I don't believe we should use children as a way to promote minority rights. The right to adoption is not only a question of prospective parents. It is also a question of the child's welfare. What is good for the homosexual (or heterosexual couple) is secondary to what is best for the child. In that case, yes, I do believe the burden is on the homosexual couple to prove that their household would be preferrable to a heterosexual household. This is all in the context of the overall picture. Should heterosexual crack adicts be given the nod over a stable homosexual household? Of course not. EDIT: So, Drakron, we agree on the welfare of the child being the primary concern. The question is, are homosexual couples the equivalent of heterosexual couples in our society. Will an adopted child face challenges as a result of going to a homosexual couple and at one point are those challenges outweighed by other factors?

I was responding to this post: Over the centuries, that is indeed what has happened. But it's not helpful to rub people's noses in it, and the elements of religion that have been 'downgraded' to allegory are not the fundamentals that make believers believe. All religions have a core that is not challenged by science - usually that there is a supernatural being who loves us. Their faith in that is as resolute as ever, it seems. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm willing, however, to take you at your word and so I will not try to convert you to Catholicism. Still, if you desire to understand me, I cannot deny my Christianity. BTW, Faramir, would that I have such eloquence in my native tongue that you have in your third language.

My first extremist view I'll post: I agree with my numbered friend. I believe heterosexual couples should be preferred in cases of adoption. I also think it should be much harder for unmarried couple than married couples. I believe homosexuals should be allowed to married. I believe married homosexual couples should be preferred to single homosexuals for adoption.

...And the core tenets of Christianity were ever to make specific laws? The nature of religion has always been moral in character, not scientific. It serves as a moral compass and that's its place for most people. Progresses in science are only offensive to folks who feel threatened on the specifics, but those specifics are not reason for religion. On the other hand, it's quite easy to level such damning accusations as "sheep" against folks who believe. Why? The world progresses and mankind progresses. Believers, atheists, and agnostics all make contributions... not only to science, but to every endeavor. Here's my question, though: why do you care? Is it a matter of superiority? I mean, do you feel somehow better than believers and therefore you feel compelled to ridicule them in one way or another? ...Or perhaps you believe that it is your obligation as a right thinking atheist to gently welcome straying believers back into the fold of dis-belief. Maybe you think folks who believe are weak. If there is no God and there is no afterlife and there is no higher purpose, then why do you care what those terrible fundamentalists have to say? After all, don't fundamentalists have a right to console themselves in the manner that gives them the most happiness? ...Or did the fundamentalists accost you once by actually talking to you regarding their religion? The horror! Well, then attack those terrible fundamentalists right now! Nothing shows your tolerance better than ridiculing wrong minded folks. Furthermore, your aim is quite indiscriminant. After all, your understanding of who are and are not fundamentalists seems to include everyone. No, evolution does not conflict with my core faith. Indeed, my core faith is that there is a supernatural being who loves me. I will gladly take the mantle of either sheep or weakling. I like the company better in the weak group anyhow.

I'm just one of the sheep. Baaaaaaah :Eldar'ssheepicon:

I take it then you're beating on me with this particular stick? I can tell you now that there are very likely more religious folks who take evolution for granted than atheists. There are simply far more religious folks in the world than atheist. Turning the debate into an atheist versus believer struggle only cheapens the discourse.

Perhaps because its called "Theory of Evolution" and not "Theory of Evolution and The Creation of Biological Matter"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's true, and I hope not to have confused the issue. You may take my comments to concur with comments earlier in the thread in which Steve, along WITHTEETH and other, pointed out that this isn't an evolution versus religious debate. The debate over evolution can be an evolution versus creationism issue or even different ideas about evolution. As a Christian, however, I often find that folks who use evolution as the stick with which to beat on Christians take for granted that proving the theory of evolution entails disproving religion altogether. Perhaps, in my zeal, I didn't convey the idea very well.