Report, edit, etc...Posted by DiscipleOfAdun on 2006-05-18 at 13:00:12
I did not mean it as an insult. I now understand that your view on this is very similar to mine.
Voy's right. Most religions are looked down upon because of a very small group of extremists. However, most educated people should realize that those people are in no way a true indicator of the majority that they claim to be a part of. Those who choose to believe those people are an example of their group are almost no better themselves, because they begin believing the stereotype, and not looking at the true group.
btw, I rather trust science(and enjoy it, seeing as how I received a perfect in science on my ACT). It is just that if I see a conflict between science and religion, I cannot in good conscience take science's side. Simply put, science's theories are based evidence that exists currently, and also on the interpretation of that evidence. That evidence is always open to scrutiny and the theory to revision. But, I do find it interesting, science has, as of yet, been unable to disprove the existence of God. That says something to me. I mean, we can see things that exist millions of light years away, down to some of the smallest sub-atomic particles. Knowledge of how different parts of the world works are uncovered almost daily now, yet nothing to disprove a deity in all the time that science has been looking for answers.
Voy's right. Most religions are looked down upon because of a very small group of extremists. However, most educated people should realize that those people are in no way a true indicator of the majority that they claim to be a part of. Those who choose to believe those people are an example of their group are almost no better themselves, because they begin believing the stereotype, and not looking at the true group.
btw, I rather trust science(and enjoy it, seeing as how I received a perfect in science on my ACT). It is just that if I see a conflict between science and religion, I cannot in good conscience take science's side. Simply put, science's theories are based evidence that exists currently, and also on the interpretation of that evidence. That evidence is always open to scrutiny and the theory to revision. But, I do find it interesting, science has, as of yet, been unable to disprove the existence of God. That says something to me. I mean, we can see things that exist millions of light years away, down to some of the smallest sub-atomic particles. Knowledge of how different parts of the world works are uncovered almost daily now, yet nothing to disprove a deity in all the time that science has been looking for answers.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-05-18 at 13:24:22
This is where the votes stand as of now!
No:24
Yes:21
No:24
Yes:21
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Blacker9Winter on 2006-05-18 at 14:07:37
Disciple, I really can appreciate your perspective on the matter of science vs. God; and I whole-heartedly believe that you are one of the very few sophisticated people following this thread. I'm glad that you are willing to recognize that science has never been able to disprove the presence/existence of God. Also, as much as you may not believe that I share a mutual interest in science, I most certainly do. I find various aspects of science intriguing and something [knowledge-wise] worth pursuing. I would one day like to see science complement God, maybe one day a bio physicist will see the complexities of sub-atomic particles such as the strings in the "string theory", and finally attribute that to God; or explaining the origin and existence of matter, if some bold scientist believes that there is no other way to explain things like this and finally gives credit to God, what a victory for humanity! Would that not prove to the world that science can complement God, and that the two discussions can coincide in one room peacefully? If one day this comes to pass, I would hope that the scientific community does not see it as defeat, or a loss-- but rather a revelation, a long overdue eye opening, and the opportunity to give the credit to the One who deserves it most.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-05-18 at 14:18:03
your the one spewing the bullcrap, pal. Maybe do a lil' research into whats being watched more. and/or just say CNN instead of generalizing.
Also, nice multi-post. If it doesn't go, only click it once.
Also, nice multi-post. If it doesn't go, only click it once.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-05-18 at 14:24:49
You're still here bickering Euro? It's it obvious that these little children are to hard-headed to understand a simple concept?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-05-18 at 17:16:36
I thought I heard the sound of a dead horse being flogged in here.
Seriously, pseudo-tabloids like the Daily Mail dredge this question up time and time again to a big chorus of 'Who cares?' from the majority of the British public. Except for my grandmother who seems to be an ardent loyalist and called for Camilla Parker-Bowles to be hanged.
To be honest, I think it was a car crash caused by a combination of factors - the major one being the chauffeur who was way over the drink-driving limit. Another factor was the paparazzi chasing them on motorbikes, which I guess could have caused the driver to crash.
Seriously, pseudo-tabloids like the Daily Mail dredge this question up time and time again to a big chorus of 'Who cares?' from the majority of the British public. Except for my grandmother who seems to be an ardent loyalist and called for Camilla Parker-Bowles to be hanged.
To be honest, I think it was a car crash caused by a combination of factors - the major one being the chauffeur who was way over the drink-driving limit. Another factor was the paparazzi chasing them on motorbikes, which I guess could have caused the driver to crash.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DarK on 2006-05-18 at 17:28:19
Well the fact that journalists would rather make pictures than to help is pretty sickening..
I think it was just a crash caused by many factors such as CaptainWill said.
I think it was just a crash caused by many factors such as CaptainWill said.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-05-18 at 17:58:16
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ May 18 2006, 04:16 PM)
I thought I heard the sound of a dead horse being flogged in here.
[right][snapback]488659[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]488659[/snapback][/right]
This sound is also permanently etched into my head. Damn American TV.
Why do you brits say drink-driving? It doesn't seem as grammatically correct as drunk-driving.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JordanN_3335 on 2006-05-18 at 19:56:45
skateboarder yah...
The person below me has ate breakfast at dinner time once in his life.
The person below me has ate breakfast at dinner time once in his life.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-05-18 at 20:41:23
QUOTE(Kellimus @ May 18 2006, 10:24 AM)
You're still here bickering Euro? It's it obvious that these little children are to hard-headed to understand a simple concept?
[right][snapback]488568[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]488568[/snapback][/right]
You have not answered my question about the other news agencies having rich people too....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-05-18 at 20:59:12
QUOTE(Syphon @ May 17 2006, 11:28 AM)
But if the US was invaded I'm confident it would lose.
[right][snapback]487989[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]487989[/snapback][/right]
I read some books that the reason why America is so powerful today is for many reasons.
The People:
(at least they use to be.....)
Painfully against authority (Shay's rebellion, many protests are some examples)
Rugged (Expansion west)
Independent (need no example)
Free thinking (Fore fathers and many others)
Can do additude (WW2 probably best example)
Pride (History of kicking the crap out of most countries we face)
and some other things but I can't remember.
Location:
As you all have stated before our location is pretty awsome. Plenty of timber, farm room, and resources. Some elbow room if you will. And of course the oceans and water ways and countries around us.
-----------------
I think, at the moment, America cannot be invaded. I believe there will be some sort of Naval battle if enemies try to come accross the oceans in force. For a ground battle I think an opposing army would use mexico simply becuase I think Canada is a little too rugged for major ground movement.
Anyway I think it would be hard to even have a major force reach the American Continent with out the US stopping it or something to that extent. Plus I believe again the American qualities of the citizens would rise up and over throw the incoming force.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Slyence on 2006-05-18 at 21:34:08
QUOTE(Jammed @ May 17 2006, 08:02 AM)
The USA is the one who makes the rules in today's world. Why is it so powerful ?
It's relatively remote, far away from european trouble?
The way they do politics ?
Mybe national mentality has something to do with it ?
What do you think ?
[right][snapback]487884[/snapback][/right]
It's relatively remote, far away from european trouble?
The way they do politics ?
Mybe national mentality has something to do with it ?
What do you think ?
[right][snapback]487884[/snapback][/right]
The USA doesn't make the rules, we enfore them on other countrys. For example, other countrys can't make any new weapons of any kind without the U.S.A. knowing about it. Some countrys sign papers to share technology with one and another.
Finally, the USA isn't even all that powerfull. If the Japan was to invade the U.S. they would get as far as Chicago or even further. And while Bush is still president, he will most likely be sleeping while it is taking place.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-05-18 at 22:21:15
QUOTE(Jammed @ May 18 2006, 04:21 AM)
Trust me, I'm russian & that's what we know about ourselves. I can explain it through natiolal history, forlkore & other things, but I better don't. 
About the army:
USA may not have an army bigger then China, but the organization level of USA's army is higher, I think. USA's modern army is tested in combat (Iraq). BTW, I think Iraq was some kind of test for the America's weapons allso.
Don't forget the theory: a rich country will get richer, while a poor one will get poorer. Maybe China will overcome USA's economics, but I can't imagine USA poor now. Something "global" must happen to break it's economy.
[right][snapback]488477[/snapback][/right]
About the army:
USA may not have an army bigger then China, but the organization level of USA's army is higher, I think. USA's modern army is tested in combat (Iraq). BTW, I think Iraq was some kind of test for the America's weapons allso.
Don't forget the theory: a rich country will get richer, while a poor one will get poorer. Maybe China will overcome USA's economics, but I can't imagine USA poor now. Something "global" must happen to break it's economy.
[right][snapback]488477[/snapback][/right]
The USA is incredibly poor. $1,000,000,000,000+ in dept is not rich and getting richer.
And at DTBK, you said "only developed country never to have suffered a major military conflict on its own soil since 1900." Not potential war machine, Canada and most Carribbean countries are devoloped. But I understand now what you really ment.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Toothfariy on 2006-05-18 at 23:25:00
QUOTE(MindArchon @ May 18 2006, 01:05 AM)
QUOTE(Toothfariy)
we have one of the most powerful and largest army in the world.
No, not really. China has the largest armed forces at this time.[right][snapback]488471[/snapback][/right]
china might be large but, do they have enough tech and supplies to have for their entire armed forces?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-05-19 at 01:06:13
QUOTE(Syphon @ May 18 2006, 07:20 PM)
The USA is incredibly poor. $1,000,000,000,000+ in dept is not rich and getting richer.
And at DTBK, you said "only developed country never to have suffered a major military conflict on its own soil since 1900." Not potential war machine, Canada and most Carribbean countries are devoloped. But I understand now what you really ment.
[right][snapback]488918[/snapback][/right]
And at DTBK, you said "only developed country never to have suffered a major military conflict on its own soil since 1900." Not potential war machine, Canada and most Carribbean countries are devoloped. But I understand now what you really ment.
[right][snapback]488918[/snapback][/right]
Sorry, perhaps I should say "country with a possiblity of wielding military power".
QUOTE
I think, at the moment, America cannot be invaded. I believe there will be some sort of Naval battle if enemies try to come accross the oceans in force. For a ground battle I think an opposing army would use mexico simply becuase I think Canada is a little too rugged for major ground movement.
If someone wanted to screw over America really badly, it only takes a few nukes. That is the fate of the Atomic Age.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sarah_K on 2006-05-19 at 05:15:13
you don't necessarily need to be drunk to be driving intoxicated.. You dont need to be drunk to have your reactions slowed A LOT than they otherwise would be when sober
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DarK on 2006-05-19 at 06:06:27
Jammed I understand folklore I just mean the Russians I know arent realy like that 
but kk thats offtopic
Ahh yes and the nukes.. Reminds me of the Iran topics.
Even if China doesnt have the tech they have a massive army. And I belive Chinize ppl would defend their country before US people do. Also if China would get Taiwan to join them.. Well then China would problably have the strongest navy in the world, or one of them.
but kk thats offtopicAhh yes and the nukes.. Reminds me of the Iran topics.
Even if China doesnt have the tech they have a massive army. And I belive Chinize ppl would defend their country before US people do. Also if China would get Taiwan to join them.. Well then China would problably have the strongest navy in the world, or one of them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-05-19 at 10:09:14
I would, but it won't matter. You're a hard-headed conservative puppet. You never admit defeat, even when it stares you in the face.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Falcon_A on 2006-05-19 at 10:55:18
the person above me is correct.
I've had scrambled eggs at 10 pm on multiple occassions.
female doges.
The person below me has had dinner for breakfast
I've had scrambled eggs at 10 pm on multiple occassions.
female doges.
The person below me has had dinner for breakfast
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-05-19 at 11:05:03
nope, toast
the person below me is either at school or doesnt have school today
the person below me is either at school or doesnt have school today
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-05-19 at 16:11:21
QUOTE(Syphon @ May 18 2006, 10:20 PM)
The USA is incredibly poor. $1,000,000,000,000+ in dept is not rich and getting richer.
[right][snapback]488918[/snapback][/right]
But that's how we outproduce and defeat opponants. We outbuy them. It's how we won the Cold War (which is what got the debt so high, under Reagan)[right][snapback]488918[/snapback][/right]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by [SmC]DiNO-X on 2006-05-19 at 16:32:40
As a always say:
"The guy/country with more money ...order"
"The guy/country with more money ...order"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Golden-Fist on 2006-05-19 at 18:53:05
We still owe france money from the Revolutionary war. At least there's no intrest.
I think america is the strongest country because it's not really it's own country. Like there is such thing as an "American" (Native Americans) but there population in the US is in the single digits if not fractions. There are a lot of people who went to america for freedom and WW2 helped that a lot. I have to say WW2 did really help america. If it wasn't for the Nazi Machine Albert Einstien wouldn't have left Europe to escape from it. And what DTBK said is very true, America hasn't recently had a war on it's soil. Which sort of says something about the country but I'll try not to get into that because I'll sound like a pompus detestable human being.
But then again that isn't really surprising. What surronds America, Canda, and Mexico. Because, they're so deadly right? However in Europe everyone is next to each other and can easily access each other's borders by land. We don't have that in america which might be why there isn't that much war in the "West".
We also have a lot of technology. Like I said before a lot of people go to america to escape from things or just restart. So we have a lot of scientests, weapons researchers, technology of all sorts, etc. There's a lot of things you can do in america that you can't do anywhere else. Like I don't think the Map Making Community is that huge in India and Turkey. A lot of things can happen here, so it's like the Las Vegas of the world. My dad inturrupted me and I lost my train of thought so this is the end of my post.
I think america is the strongest country because it's not really it's own country. Like there is such thing as an "American" (Native Americans) but there population in the US is in the single digits if not fractions. There are a lot of people who went to america for freedom and WW2 helped that a lot. I have to say WW2 did really help america. If it wasn't for the Nazi Machine Albert Einstien wouldn't have left Europe to escape from it. And what DTBK said is very true, America hasn't recently had a war on it's soil. Which sort of says something about the country but I'll try not to get into that because I'll sound like a pompus detestable human being.
But then again that isn't really surprising. What surronds America, Canda, and Mexico. Because, they're so deadly right? However in Europe everyone is next to each other and can easily access each other's borders by land. We don't have that in america which might be why there isn't that much war in the "West".
We also have a lot of technology. Like I said before a lot of people go to america to escape from things or just restart. So we have a lot of scientests, weapons researchers, technology of all sorts, etc. There's a lot of things you can do in america that you can't do anywhere else. Like I don't think the Map Making Community is that huge in India and Turkey. A lot of things can happen here, so it's like the Las Vegas of the world. My dad inturrupted me and I lost my train of thought so this is the end of my post.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-05-19 at 19:10:02
Yeah, there's just this strange thing that when a war is fought in a country, its stuff tends to get blown up.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-05-19 at 20:11:21
QUOTE(Kellimus @ May 19 2006, 06:08 AM)
I would, but it won't matter. You're a hard-headed conservative puppet. You never admit defeat, even when it stares you in the face.
[right][snapback]489038[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]489038[/snapback][/right]
But I believe your logic on this news topic is flawed or at least incomplete.
Summary:
Fox news is bad becuase it is run by rich people. Rich people = bad becuase they are usually conservative.
Which the above statement doesn't explain the other news agencies who are run by rich men also. Are they bad too?
It also doesn't explain all the rich HollyWood actors who are liberal and do not like Bush.
It also doesn't explain why Mercer Island, the rich island I live on where the majority of people living here have a 250,000+ income are liberal. By the way the island's population is over 24,000 I believe. We are right next to Seattle FYI.