Izzy

Wow. I hope everyone's confused and not just me. I'm starting to think both Impervious and ST are AIs while trying to make it seem like only one of them can be. Smart guys. But not smart enough. Who's the detective? Can they *please* let us know what they've found out...

Woah, woah, hang on there. It was a joke. You were supposed to understand that by the last line, because there's 4 ways to interpret it, and only you know which one is true. 1) We're both AI's and I mean it. 2) You're an AI, I'm not, and you know I'm joking. 3) Neither of us are AIs, but since I've thought you were an AI this whole time, I was only joking with you. 4) I'm an AI, and you aren't, so I'm doing it to get both of us lynched. 2/3 are the most plausible. You know whether it's 1 or not. And I'd be pretty freaking stupid post that if it was 4. Dunno whether you think I'm smart or not, but I'm not dumb enough to pretty much tell everyone I'm an AI if I am for no reason.

Agreed. They are. That\'s what this thread is about. Care to explain why it\'s more of a matter of state? Meh to the first bit, good to the second *cringe* Please go read Andromeda\'s post before I say something I regret... Better. And definitely. Also, SomeGuy, I love what you just posted. That\'s what I was trying to say in my last paragraph. *edit* The quotes got all messed up.

Dude. What the f**king hell. ST, I'll guess you'll have to continue without me 'cos of that ^ idiot.

I'm pretty sure I know who the A.I's are too. S**t. Class just ended. D= D= D=. I'll see you guys during lunch/6th period.

Since I'm a back up, can I still post stuff, but in grey?

Lol, yeah. I can pretty much be online all day whilst in school. Eith the exception of P.E., we have to do outside things... Aww, I want Mekal to come online now.

^Amen, brother! Jrod, the problem is no one will ever change their oppinion on this through debating. In my mind, I believe theists are afraid being proven wrong or are just too stubborn to realize that there is no God. Clearly you believe the total opposite. Neither of us are getting any where as both of us are convinced we're right.

Shouldn't you be in school or something? He won't? D:

I tried doing that during maths today. Different method. I'll try again during lunch and upload when I get home.

*pokes Mekal*

I know Chris Langan isn't... I'm totally in the running though, right? *edit* Not for man obviously, but you know what I mean..

0.o Who is that directed at? I'd be totally fine with it. No idea. I don't like religion, so I don't look into it that much. I guess whoever's most in charge makes the rule.

I hate to break this to you, but scientific study after study after study have been done where large groups of people prayed for certain illnesses. There was a control group where no one was prayed for, a group where people thought some not-so-nice thoughts about people, and a group where people were truly prayed for by several churches. There was absolutely no affect on the patients in any of the studies conducted. Prayer doesn't work. Thinking nice thoughts about yourself might cheer you up, but as a scientific thing, it has no affect. Also, being 16 is no excuse. I'm 14 and seem to be doing pretty okay.

Oh man, I'm dumb. Totally forgot that bit. Okay, so Tex is still alive. That's good.

Yeah, but as you've probably seen on the news, churches don't see it that way. I didn't actually mean that. It was supposed to be taken lightly, hence the smiley face. I just thought it would help to see how much easier this problem would be if the church didn't have so much to do with marriage and if it were all state controlled. I'm sorry. In my experience, I've only met one person (irl) that hasn't said "Go to hell" or looked at me funny when I told him I was an atheist. I was trying to be disrespectful, but that's just how I feel about things at the moment, so sorry if it came off like that. Liberal means I'm not Conservative. Conservatives are very church-going people. If you'll notice at the top, I put an anti-conservative mark. I put this under state not really because it belongs there, but because it is more state than church. If you want, I can put it in the neutral category. What is the case then? Purple pwns all.

Before I begin, I'm going to point out a few things about myself. Although I'm trying to write this as unbiasedly as possible, I feel obligated to mention my stances on religion, sexuality, and government. I think if everyone knows my position starting out, it won't lead to any guesses or false information. For one, I'm atheist, and not a huge fan of churches to begin with. I haven't believed in any sort of God for about 3 years now (I was agnostic/atheist on and off for some time, but definitely atheist now). On sexuality, well, it's complicated. Let's just say I'm attracted to cool people, be they male or female. I'm 100% for gay rights, and I have no problem growing old with, um, a woman. (Still a little weird saying that >_>). Also, I'm liberal. Although I have no problem with conservatives in general, I do not agree with the majority of their values as presented by McCain during the '08 election or by Bush since I've been in Kindergarten. Though these two men do not reflect all conservative ideas, they are pretty much all I'm familiar with, ergo what I base my views on. So, let's sum that up. Anti-church, pro-gay, anti-conservative, pro-liberal. That's 4 points State, 0 points Church. Without a doubt, we can see which side I'm on when it comes to most matters. But then you're probably wondering where the (my) problem lies. To begin, marriage is pretty much a holy union strictly between men and women, as approved by God and the church, and legalized by some sort of spiritual. representative. People all over the world get married, yet it's always with some sort of priest. Marriage was created by the church, so isn't it their say who can and can not be married? If a church decides gays shouldn't be allowed to wed because it goes against their bible, isn't their decision final? A priest can totally deny wedding a same-sex couple just because s/he feels like it, right? ...Right? Well, so far I'm not convinced. Though marriage is legally binding, and all things legal are controlled/created by our governments, (I'm not implying that marriage was created by our government, I'm saying that the fact that it actually means something with some sort of legal-stand-point was set down in the law by our regime), there isn't really anything that changes about you once you get married. You own more things, and if you're female you go from a miss to a Mrs. It isn't illegal to cheat on your spouse, in fact, nothing that the bible says you shouldn't do whilst married is illegal, it just generally causes a divorce. So then, what's the point of getting married? For theists, I suppose it's some holy matrimony that shows the world and God they love each other. For atheists, it's just showing the world they love each other. However, in this case, are atheists any different than gays? Why would churches allow someone who very openly doesn't believe in God to get married, while someone who does believe in God yet is attracted to someone of their own gender can not? I think that's just about the dumbest thing ever. So, Church vs. State on Marriage Laws, at this point the church wins. They created it, they control. The State should have no say because honestly they've got nothing to do with it. If the State were to abolish all churches ( ) and recreate marriage to where it means something more than just binding two people my God, then all problems solved. Alternatively, there should be some sort of equal to marriage for atheists and gays. Not that domestic partnership stuff. It's still marriage, as in the people are still bound by the same rules, it just has nothing to do with religion. I could so go for that. Anyway... Discuss! Debate! I'm going to bed now.

LMAO. I just spent the last 10 minutes trying to convince my mom I'm doing homework rather than chatting to people online. I don't think nearly bursting out laughing helped my case too much. >_>

Woah, back up. I never said nothing can be scientifically proven! I've been saying that the bible hasn't been scientifically proven. Lots of things have been proven. Like evolution, the earth not being flat, gravity, etc. etc. etc. I'm still standing behind my view of Einstein being an atheist. Atheisim, by definition, is not believing in God, not anti-theism. Einstein did not believe in God. He never accepted Jesus and God to be one person. Because of this, Einstein is an atheist. This is rushed. Got to take a lame shower. Shall continue tomorrow!

Okay, although I understand your point, I have to point out that I DO NOT believe the things written in the bible. Whatsoever. Prove to me they are facts, have them survive some hardcore empirical tests, don't falsify them, and I'll consider it. Until then, the bible saying Jesus and God are a solitary person is completely irrelevant. Either Einstein didn't realize the way the bible implied Jesus and God being one person, or he chose to ignore it, the way I do, because there is absolutely no proof to suggest it is so. Also, when did Einstein's word become law? I agree he's a total genius and love him for all his work on the theory of relativity and several of his other accomplishments, but just because he says/thinks something doesn't make it true. Only about 7% of scientists believe in a personal god. Einstein can believe whatever he wants, but I won't accept it as fact just because he says it. Just like you're probably not accepting any of the things I'm saying. >_>

Cats all the way. Although I enjoy the company of some dogs (most hate me...), cats are just a lot less work and noise. I am _so_ getting a pet white tiger when I grow up.

You remind me of the person who was arguing for the existence of ghosts by saying China wasn't real. I'm sorry, but please tell me you realize how silly your argument is. We have quite a lot of empirical data showing Mozart existed (records dating his birth/death, his music, etc.), therefore, we can conclude without any reasonable doubt that he existed. However, we don't have any real proof of Jesus's existence, but since many have claimed to see him, we can consider he existed. I'm not arguing Jesus' existence here; I could care less. With the things you're saying about Einstein, all it really seems we can debate is his definition of God. I highly doubt he thought of Jesus and God as one interchangeable figure. His records of being an atheist certainly don't put it that way. I think we can conclude that Einstein thought Jesus existed historically, and not as God. Also, take into consideration that atheism was generally frowned upon when Einstein was alive (heh, it still is..). Some of the things he said could have been just to look politically correct at the time.

This is getting fun! I hope I don't have to go off-line soon..

Well, since Neptune isn't eating his, I guess I'll steal it.

Pfft. What proof? I believe that a long time ago, it was likely that a man named Jesus went around spreading his thoughts and morals. Just as a long time ago, a man named Saint Nickolaus went around giving children toys and sweets. Both these historically true figures have been given mythical properties so the children of today can continue celebrating the traditions that their ancestors did. I do not believe there is an immortal spirit, Jesus, God, Santa, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy. If you haven't noticed, there is a trend with all these characters. All were created to make humankind behave, some were just more kid-friendly than others.