Cyrrylia

Really? I too would like to see some examples of this supposed bias in ID articles and such. Conservapedia is not even entertaining to me. The articles are all incredibly short, and read as if they were copied from a web forum debate.

No, but I do have some problem with the "Christians VS Everybody else" mentality that boards like this tend to have. I thus figured it would be best to just not share my religion at all, to keep things more open. Buuut, no. Did not work. I am a Christian, but now I am a "non-believer." Which means that I can not post in the places that were the sole purpose of my signing up on this forum. You know...current events. Soooo, this will be my last post here. A point of veiw which is so simple, is not hard to show. I am not "explaining" anything. What is there to explain? Well: 1 - how does the self fail? If that is all there is to us, then why would it fail 2 - Rational self interest is different than just plain old self interest. Killing for something like a job is not rational. Well he sounds dumb.

I have answered clearly twice. I am not telling you. Actualy, I would say so. I am a Laissez-faire Capitalist, but I can argue from the side of a Communist or an Anarchist, in various forms. I have to, or else how can I be sure I know what I am talking about when I say that it is the overall best type of economy? Soo...you do have thought for yourself. To please the Lord. Well yeah. Save Jesus, I would be hard pressed in believing any action anybody does is completely selfless. For an Atheist "Because I feel good doing it" basicaly means that they are indeed concerned, so to show this concern they help, and they get the "reward" of feeling good. Maybe the Athiests you spoke to had a problem completely telling you their feelings.

Are you sure? All it does is assume that what is in ones rational self interest is right. That is the only thing it has no justification on, because you can not realy justify anything at that point. And I am only vaugly (and I mean vaugly) aware of who Sartre was. Care to share? That is not what I said. I said that you should be able to, if you wanted. You do not have to, but it should be possible. That is why I said "If you can not" then something is wrong. A nice invalid analogy. Both it is inherently flawed, and in that it does not go against what I said. What do you want to know? Um yes. I assume a lot of things. Everybody does. If we did not assume, we would never get anywhere in life. And again, I tell you no. I am not an Agnostic either. I dislike Agnostics. They are just indessisive Athiests. Even worse than a normal Atheist. That is the last time I go and type on a laptop. The keyboard is so scrunched up, it is difficult for me to type. What I mean was that you should be able to. Not that you have to. It should have been clear in the beggining. How can they? This is the internet. My words should come across with nothing. So you can better understand the mindset of your fellow man. I obviously know nothing of this Biblical Servanhood, because I have never heard of it. Which I find odd. You would think it would have shown up somewhere.

You have to assume something somewhere.

I am in high school. I graduate this year. I am in debate, and am a member of the NFL...man I love saying that. I just assumed. Because everybody is telling me I know nothing, that my arguments are so abysmal, and that I know nothing of economics, yet nobody actualy bothers to tell me why. I therefore wish to know why. If they are so bad, then even if you agree with me you should still point it out that I am wrong so that I can hold my view for correct reasons. Now, if my arguments are not horrible, are valid, and I do know what I am talking about, then why is everybody saying otherwise?

I do not remember the Aztecs having such a large amount of land...

After that last link, I was contemplating whether or not I should post a link to stormfront here. Because that last link I indeed find plenty racist. While I do not agree that you must necessarily be racist to disagree with illegal immigration, I feel that link was racist. apothanein kerdos - Can you perhaps refute my points for me? Unlike the other two posts you spoke to me in, this one I am very interested in, and am not simply stating an opinion based on some light reading. If there is one thing here I feel I know about, it is economics.

I believe Mark may have been writen by Mark. Of the other three, no. Ooookay. How do I respond to this? Again. I am not saying this. It was rejected, and should not have made it.

Oops. I am dreadfully sorry. It turns out that I am the one who missunderstood. I thought that it was being said that I said that kant was the only way for Athiests to have morals withought God. Buuut, I was wrong. The reason I did not catch that was because yall kept quoting what I said. I know what I said. I just aparently did not know what you said. Oops. Objectivism. I hate that stupid system, but it exists. Is it realy that hard to see it from their side? I honestly think that if you can not argue their side, your faith is not as strong as you think it is. My reasoning is that you must be afraid of even pretending to consider such an idea. If your faith was indeed strong, you sould easily go and think about the possibility, withought any problems because you would be so convinced that it would not matter. Hence I can. I know Atheists are wrong. So much so that I can entertain the notion without any problems. Could you? I do not understand your question.

No he did not. Yes he did. Wooooooooooo. No, I did not. Do you read English? You said I said that atheists just need Kant. What I realy said was Atheists just need a self consistent system. You just...invented Kant somewhere within that statement.

Wow. For once, you are right, and I realy am wrong. Good job. And then you fall off the cliff. You are right, I do not know how. Because you get what I say so wrong. How am I supposed to respond to something that realy is not responding to me? My first statement says we can have morality withought a higher power. The second statement does not matter. You do not need "Kant" to have morals, you need a self consistent moral philosophy. That is it. That is what I said. I did not say you needed Kant. That is just crazy talk.

I admit, I have been a bit testy in this thread. I apologize. However, I never called you a liar. I said you could be lying. Which is valid, because you did not offer anything but your own experience that what you say is true, and that hundreds of thousands are flocking towards witchcraft based on a few books. And I have no way to even tell if this realy is your experience. So yes, you could be lying.

Again, you do not know what I mean better than I do. I know what it means. So I also am guilty of selective reading. Very well, now provide me with evidence that the people who agree with you are the ones who are "worth their weight." How do you come to this conclusion? Can you prove it? You offer nothing either. I will leave now, without even reading the rest of it. I concede, whatever you say is right. Everything I said is wrong.

I think you need to re-read Kant. What he said was that for absolute certain, we will never know if an action is moral or not because one of the qualities of a good act is by defignition not knowable. And it is not God, if that is what you are thinking. Kantian ethics exist. The categorical imperative exists. Thus, what I said was correct. Can you indeed quantify the nature of Athiests and antitheists? Could you perhaps point me to a study done, or some other sort of work that shows your assertion to be true? You may ask. Does not mean I will answer. I am not discussing the odds either. If Christians are wrong, and Athiests are right, then a Christian did not live life like they could have, and they have no second chance. Again, stop using this. It is logicaly invalid, and is not reasonable. There are other possibilities. What if Muslims are right? Then you burn. What if Buddhists are right? Then you got nowhere at all in trying to leave this cycle of life. My point is again, that your suggestion is logicaly invalid. It offers nothing. I can give you two. The want of being nice. Contrary to what you may think, the nature of every man is not to be evil and chaotic. Some people may be nice for the sake of being nice. Another reason would be that because they believe there to be no life after this one, they want to spread the happiness and goodness, so that everybody may enjoy this life better. Moral relativism is popular because it is easy, and people who are not moraly inclined by religion do not want to think of how to quantify goodness. You are right about the absolute moral authority. But that authority does not need to be God, or a god. Kant has his categorical imperative. Utilitarianism has its quantitative maximization of good. There are others of course. And no god says anything in either. I remember you...are you not the one who can not understand me? I hope so, because this argument is a straw man. I never said that athiests can have morals and use Kant to justify it. And if I actualy did, I must be crazy. Can you show me where I said this?

Oh my. You...there must be something wrong. Here let me help. My faith was misplaced. This is what I responded to: "While the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas" may have some historical significance ("Gospel of Judas rattles beliefs" April 7), I don't see how it could possibly be a serious challenge to the Christian faith. Just a historic fact or two, a little math and a bit of common sense can show why this is the case." Let me highlight what I ment by "This is true." "While the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas" may have some historical significance ("Gospel of Judas rattles beliefs" April 7), I don't see how it could possibly be a serious challenge to the Christian faith. Just a historic fact or two, a little math and a bit of common sense can show why this is the case." Do you see now? It is true. The Gospel of Judas has historical significance. But it is not going to challenge the faith of Christians. Actualy, not you did not. This is what I responded to: "Most scholars worth their weight have rejected the notion that tradition is incorrect on who composed the Gospels." That is not true. You offered some facts that have nothing to do with that statement. You *could* have shown me some statistical analysis of scholars who agree with tradition, and those who do not, or some other such thing. But you did not. You said it was true, and went on a tangent on why one could say that tradition was true, not if scholars agreed with it or not. Do not worry. It is working both ways. Writers of the Gospels mostly claimed anonymity. The names by witch they go by, like "Gospel of John" were not writen by a guy named John. That is all I am saying. I could care less about anything you are saying, because it has nothing to do with what I said, or am saying now. Now I did say that gospel writers atributed gosples to names. Which is true. Afterall, "John" is traditionaly attributed to John. But scholars do not agree with that. Unless you can prove otherwise. Show me some statistics or something. You asserted that. I did not give a date. I said at least 3 generations, and I use generation to mean 10 years. Now, the word is very vauge, so I apologize, but 40 years is a made up amount. Even regarding the procreation of human offspring, a generation is usualy regarded to be only 22 years. After this you assume them to all have been writen at the same time, which is also not true. I never even heard of such an idea. Especialy considering that the two most prevailing authorship theories have either later documents being based off the earlier ones, or all of them based off a combination of the earlier ones and some missing document we have yet to find. Regardless, they were not writen at the same time, and since most of your arguments revolve around that assumption... It obviously would not, or else we would not be having this discussion now would we? Actualy, your interpretation had absolutely no reasoning behind it. You just said it was so. This is all you said on your interpretation: Where is the analysis? I just see the interpretation. Where is the justification? The logic? The historical analysis? Because you know all, so much, that you know what I mean when aparently I do not. I said that some passages and ideas were highly similar, if not identical. But you selectivly read, and assume I ment the entire gospel. Did I say that? No. You just made it up. All I ment was just that. Some passages, and some ideas where similar if not identical. Not that the entirety of the gospel is. But nooo. I am not going to comment on the rest, because it is based on a faulty assumption you made about what I said.

I see. The only thing you respond to is my personal attack. I therefore conclude that I am right, you know it, and that you are unable to show any proof for anything you say. If this was not the case, you would at least try and do more than simply say "You are wrong." Things like this: I can really tell. Because Shoplifting is of course a major contributor to inflation according to every major economic school of thought! Oh wait...it is not! Amazing. It is not even mentioned in any valid school of thought! We shall see. This is an open thread. The only problem with such a thing is that this being the forum that it is, everybody will sit and agree with you. Because they agree with you. It has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments, merely that they agree, and cheerleading is common in forums like these. Many people here will not bother to look up anything. They will not bother to actually check the facts. Nobody will really notice that you said that shoplifting was a major contributor to inflation. They will just nod their heads and go "Yeah, Go LadyC!" Finally, apparently my age is a major determiner of the validity of my arguments. Ad hominems work here then. Which means that if you are so lazy, you can not adhere to basic grammar rules, you must be so lazy that you can not bother to research anything you say, and only will spout whatever is easiest for you.

How...in...the...world...did you do this? How could you have possibly misinterpreted what I wrote so drasticaly? I am not even going to bother to clarify. Just go back, and read what I responded to, and what I wrote. I am sure you can do it yourself. I have faith in you. That is simply not true. The writers themselves claim to be anonomys, but the gospels are still named what they are named. Again, you somehow misread what I say. Ahuh... Nevermind that fact that they were not writen at the same time. Or that the first gospel writen, Mark, is pretty much agreed upon to have been writen around 60-70, while later ones can go into the 100s. Sure it was. Okay. Given what you have said before, I will simply not believe that you have devine knowledge as to how to interpret the Gospel of Thomas, when people can not even agree what the Canonocial gospels mean. Aswell, you again misinterpret me. What I ment was things like this: Thomas 8 SV 8. And Jesus said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!" Matthew 13:47-50 NIV: 47"Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 18: 12-14 NIV 12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." Luke 15: 3-7 NIV 3Then Jesus told them this parable: 4"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." Thomas 107 SV 107. Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, I love you more than the ninety-nine." You see? Similar. But you seem to not understand me. If you can not understand me, how am I supposed to believe that you understand the Gospel of Thomas enough to interpret it faithfully?

That is not true. If Atheists are right, then Atheists win. They enjoyed life. That is all that mattered. And your agument can apply to anything. What if Christians are wrong? If you put any other philosophy there, and they are right, Christians lose out. But just like if Atheists are right, if a Christian is right in that instance, they win. Your argument is not valid. That too is wrong. A government is not the only thing that stops them. People can have morals withought a god or other highter power. And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power.

Or: 18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live. NIV

I am a guy. Just because my handle has an "ia" at the end does not mean anything. You are picking on me however. And anyway, I can not argue in a happy mood. I have to be at least content. I value my sarcasm and cynicism, and I can not use those if I am happy. I am also very glad that you showed me how I am wrong. It realy shows your knowledge on this topic. Yes, it is now 2006. Yet I somehow doubt that if immigration has had no impact upon insurance rates in as close as last year, it would suddenly cause such a tremendous increase this year. Provide evidence please. Show me how this is so. Provide the increase in insurance rates for instance, here in Texas, with the normal inflation rate. If it is the same or less, obviously you are wrong. But you simply can not help yourselves can you? Obviously some of you people have such little knowledge on this subject that you must resort to picking on a "kid," while offering no evidence to back up any of your own claims, and sitting around patting each other on the back. Nice. Finally. A valid argument. Hard to decipher however through the horde of bad spelling and grammar. But we have already gone through this. Yes, you can say that they are illegal and that is that. But that is not exactly useful now is it? They are illegal, so we should not bother quantifying the affect they have on our economy. We should ignore the massive amount of money we would spend in order to actually shut down the border in a meaningful way, and deport all illegals we find. Right? Well, however valid that is, that is not useful, and is quite frankly, a short-sighted "solution." I have already in fact, calculated such a thing about a year ago. It was in response to something similar to this, that one could not support themselves if they have a family. So, I decided to show that a single mother with two children could in fact support herself and her children, including things such as health care, if she worked 2 jobs minimum wage. Hard yes. But possible. I also had to use local expenses, such as local rent, and such things. To your other things. I laugh. Well not really, but I do on the inside. My mother and father both supported themselves at minimum wage. My mother was already out of the house at 15, working minimum wage to support herself, and getting no help from any of her family. She was too proud for that. She did fine. A single person can effortlesly do it. It only gets tricky with more people, and only one source of income, yet I still know it possible. I never said cheap labour stops inflation. That is a straw man. And your "leading cause of inflation" is laughable. That is why I laughed. Reasons for inflation is still a much speculated upon thing. Depending on which economic theory you subscribe to, inflation can have many causes. For instance, back in the day before the adoption of fiat currency, inflation was thought to be solely caused by an increase of money supply. Even now, that is a cause of inflation. We also have things like the sudden increase of oil causing inflation. This is called "Supply shock inflation." We have your Phillips curve, your Built-in inflation, Inertial inflation, ect. And none of them mentioned "Shoplifting" as a main reason for inflation. Such an assertion...how could you possibly say I have no knowledge of economics and say that? It does not even make any sense!

Okay. I was well into my reply and my computer crashes. That sucks. This means you get shorter replies untill I get to where I left off. Does not matter. Privately owned places have a right to change their policies. Reality is the way it is, and despite your objection, they can do this. Besides, what does this have to do with immigration at all? See above. And how can you realy argue this, and you not know the Mexican flag colours? Do you know what an Ad Hominem is? Because they are not valid arguments. You here, show no reasoning as to why my arguments are wrong. You merely state that it is so. I have already made reference to the fact that I am still in high school in my first post in this thread. Not that that really matters. What matters is the quality of my arguments. But if things like that do matter...what about you? You do not show even a basic understanding of English grammar in this thread. You constantly disregard even the most simplest of rules. If you can not follow basic grammar rules, how could you possibly understand anything about economics? As well, your claim implies that you must know all about this issue, and know everything about the benefits and costs. Not only about immigration, but minimum wage. Yet both are constantly being debated by economists. Are you so far beyond the scope of modern economists, that you can just disregard valid arguments at the whim of your own opinion? I will not reply to this, because this really does not have anything to do with the topic at hand. These things are different from apartment to apartment. Oh no, you are belittling me. Whether intentional or not, you have been very insulting to me throughout this thread. You insult my opinions, my arguments, my age, and you offer nothing valid to back up your own opinions. Forgive me if I decide to show you the same courtesy.

*sigh* No. This is anecdotal evidence. For one, you could be lying. For two, even if you are telling the truth, this hardly shows that "Hundreds of thousands" are flocking towards witchcraft because of some fantasy books. Inspire you to think about new ideas and things. This is not realy a point, or else, I do not see it. Especialy because of lack of grammatical structure. Your first statement is a fragment afterall. Periods are your friends. The lessons depends on the book. And if it is fiction, it realy is not witchcraft. It is not like any magical system in any fiction novel actualy reflects reality in a meaningfull way. Huh? Depend on magic? I assume you mean magic anyway. "Majic" is not anything. It is entertaining. Better to do it in an entertaining fashion, than to bore you with some story about Peter the wandering Butcher, and his encounters with oversalting. But that is not what their books are about. A book can not possibly be about that, and be interesting. In writing, your story must be character driven. Everything else is to drive the characters along. A story that is all about witchcraft, would not be read by many people. Besides, a writer makes things up. Oops, wrong. I am sorry, but most of these things are either wrong, are purposefull but do not mean anything, or are coincidences. Also, I fear this site makes things up. Who said this? The Potter books are good, because they are fantasy. They are good stories. They are fun to read. I could care less about the "majic." (what is majic?) I honestly think you are far too paranoid.

Um, I am not an Atheist. At all. Not even a little bit. Now, again, you see it as helping because you assume you are right. They see it as anoying because they assume they are right.

Hmm. Realy? Can you provide evidence to support this claim. Perhaps a survey that links the two together, or something? I have never in my life heard of anybody at all deciding that witchcraft is cool based on what they read in a book. It is called "Fantasy" for a reason, and children, even young ones know that Fantasy is just that. Fantastic tales ment to entertain, enspire, and envoke the imagination. If one is that paranoid, you can just tell them "This is fantasy. It is not real." or your own version that mentions what God says on such matters, and again that it is not real, nor an accurate depiction of reality as reality. I do not think small children understand allegories however. But that is not what you should be telling them. Tell them it is wrong, and that "Fiction" books are just that. Fiction. Fantasy is Fantasy. Actualy, these authors fruit are entertaining books that enspire creativity and show life lessons... The mirror? Enlighten me further. Show me some examples of these books that reflect magic in reality. I know. Because in LOTR the only ones to use witchraft are the wizards, who have that ability because they are devine. Just like in real life. And if you try to use magic and are not devine, you get corrupted and turn into a minion of Satan. Just like in real life. I do no understand the purpose of this. Okay. This has what to do with the Fantasy genre? Also, do note that magic users who are not Wiccans exist. There are Arsutru, Satanists in their various forms, Generic Mages, Athiests, and even Christians, or those who say they are anyway. Those who are Christian and do it interpret the Bible differently, and claim to get their power from God. At any rate...yeah, Wiccans are not the only ones, and they are not even the ones anybody should care about. Imagination is evil? Christ must have been evil then, for putting wonderfull teachings into parable form.